100828-governor-general q bryce-re constitutional matters-incorrect advice re conflict of...

8/9/2019 100828-Governor-General Q Bryce-Re Constitutional Matters-Incorrect Advice Re Conflict of Interest-etc

1/22

28-8-2010 Page 1 Incorrect advice Re conflict of interest, etcPLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website

Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. [email protected]

Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC 28-8-2010

Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia

[email protected].

Ref: various constitutional issuesIncorrect advice Re conflict of interest, etc

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN10.

Madam,

as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I consider matters as to the true intention of the Framers of the

Constitution..15http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/27.html?query=%22thi+act+and+all+law+made+by+the+p

arliament%22#fn50QUOTE

Constitutional interpretation20

The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is thesearch for the intention of its makers[51].

END QUOTE

.What the whole appointment debacle does prove is the lack of proper information available and25to avoid any such repeat it would be wise to finally ensure that the OFFICEOF-THE-

GUARDIAN is in place so we can avoid simular debacles in the future..

The book "Law Made Simple" by Colin F. Padfield, LL.B.,D.P.A.(Lond.) on page 55:QUOTE30

"The Rule against Bias. A true judicial decision can be reached only if the judge himself isimpartial. This is an obvious requirement in a court of law or a tribunal. In R. v Rand

(1866) it was held that a judge is disqualified where (i) he has a direct pecuniary interest,

however small, in the subject-matter in dispute; or (ii) there is real likelihood that the judge

would have a bias in favour of one of the parties.35

For example, if a judge is related to, or is a friend of, one of the parties to a dispute there

would be real likelihood of bias. It is immaterial whether a judicial decision was in fact

biased, for as was said by Lord Chief Justice Heward in R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte

McCarthy (1924): 'Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly40

be seen to be done.'END QUOTE.

Having read the opinion Stephen Gageler of 26 August 2010 it appears to me he simply is not

a CONSTITUTIONALIST, as I am, and hence interpret matters as a lawyer and by this45

misconceive matters.

As the Framer of the Constitution stated;


2/22



Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the

National Australasian Convention)QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-

We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.END QUOTE5.

Lawyers often interpret to what they desire and fail to realise that the constitution is aconsiderable different document. I wouldnt have comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth

on 19 July 2006 that compulsory voting is unconstitutional and averment is unconstitutional ifthe opponent lawyers with their legal skills could have had their way.10.

QUOTE

END QUOTE


3/22



.

I will now quote some material of your website:.

http://www.gg.gov.au/QUOTE5

ADVICE FROM THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL, HER EXCELLENCY MS QUENTIN BRYCE AC

The Official Secretary to the Governor-General, Mr Stephen Brady, stated today that theGovernor-General had received advice from the Solicitor-General of Australia, Mr Stephen10

Gageler, SC, in relation to Her Excellencys personal position in the current political

circumstances.

END QUOTE.

http://www.gg.gov.au/announcement.php/view/id/19/title/advice-from-the-solicitor-general-to-15the-governor-general-her-excellency-ms-quentin-bryce-acQUOTE

ADVICE FROM THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL, HER

EXCELLENCY MS QUENTIN BRYCE AC

The Official Secretary to the Governor-General, Mr Stephen Brady, stated today that20

the Governor-General had received advice from the Solicitor-General of Australia, Mr

Stephen Gageler, SC, in relation to Her Excellencys personal position in the currentpolitical circumstances.

Mr Brady said the Governor-General had sought the Solicitor-Generals advice on

Monday, 23 August.25

In the interests of transparency, the Governor-General has decided to make both her

letter to the Solicitor-General, and his advice publicly available, Mr Brady said.

Full copies of the Solicitor-Generals advice and the Governor-Generals letter can be

found below. There will be no further comment on the matter from Government House.END QUOTE30.

In my view there is a lot wrong with your position as Governor-General but most people simply

may never understand/comprehend this and because of this the issue of conflict of interest hasarisen by this also..35In my view you would be constitutionally in no position to take any proper action, such asseeking to call for another election and neither could rely upon the advice of Ms Julia

Gillard as after all while currently a Minister of State with the Crown she is not a Member

of Parliament!.40The comment (paragraph 2)QUOTE

who hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General and who must be, or become

within three months of their appointment, senator or Members of the House of

Representatives45END QUOTE.

In my view is a deceptive statement that doesnt at all precisely state the truth.


4/22



The Governor-General can appoint anyone for up to three months without any need to be or

become a member of the parliament. It is only if the Governor-General desires the person to

serve a commission as a Minister of State for longer then 3 months that the constitution requires

the person to be a Member of the parliament by latest at the expiry time of 3 months..5The usage of the term to become within three months may give the false impression that a

Senator elected as a Senator designate is to become a Senator albeit it might be Say 8 months

down the road and still could be a Minister of State. The term become after the terminology to

be is I view deceptive as the person appointed can not serve beyond 3 months unless being aMember of the parliament, in this includes having taken up the seat in the parliament for which10he/she was elected and as such the usage become then is not applicable as such. If for example

the governor-General were to appoint me as was E. Barton on 26 December 1900 (before

federation occurred) as by commission to form a government then I could serve for a maximum

of 3 months as such without any need to be elected and having taken up the seat in the

Parliament. If for example there is no agreement between a sensible outcome and the governor-15General is not sure who to commission to form a Government then the moment the 3 month term

of Ms Julia Gillard expires past the 21 August 2010 election date then regardless if any other

election were to be held Ms Gillard may be ineligible to continue as caretaking Prime Minister

once 21 November has arrived. Meaning the Governor-General then would have to find another

person to act as care taking Prime Minister because Ms Julia Gillard is not a member of20parliament until after the Writs are returned and she has taken up- the seat she was elected for.

Mr Tony Abbott is not a member of parliament either until the return of the writs and he has

taken up the seat elected for.

If there were however to be a new election called then neither may be a Member of Parliament

for some time to come and so every other successful candidate for the House of Representatives.25However, the question would be under what constitutional powers could a Governor-General call

for another general election merely because of the sitting arrangement of Parliament?.

The sitting arrangement of the Parliament has nothing to do with who shall be commissioned to

form a government. Hence in my view it would be a gross misuse and abuse of the Office of the30

Governor-General to pursue a new election for no other purpose but to seek to enhance thestanding of either major party in the House of Representatives.That is not the function of the Governor-General at all. A Governor-General must be above

politics and should not be concerned which seat is held by which political party and in what

number each party holds seat. It has absolutely nothing to do with the forming of a government.35.

As was witnessed by the commission of E. Barton on 26 December 1900 there was no known

Member of Parliament existing and neither was it relevant because all the Governor-General was

concerned with was the commission of the person who could achieve to form a governmentirrespective if people were or were not in the majority of a number of seats in the parliament.40

Indeed as no election had been called let alone had been held then the Governor-General could

not base his the giving of the commission upon any election results that were to eventuate in timeto come. And as the then Premier of N.S.W. had returned his commission to form a government

in the federation because affectively others didnt want to work with him to form a governmentbecause he had been opposing the federation, then that really underlines that all the governor-45

General requires to do is to commission a person the Governor-General views might be capable

to be a suitable Prime Minister and may be able to form a government..

I find it therefore very disturbing that the opinion statedQUOTE50

In ordinary circumstances, by unbroken tradition, the Governor-General acts in the

discharge of those functions on the advice of the prime minister who is the member who

has the confidence of the House of Representatives.END QUOTE


5/22



.

Come on, there is currently not a single Member of the House of Representatives existing as

there are those who are designate as Members of the House of Representatives but some may

never proceed with actually taking up the seat after the return of the writs.More over, the constitution was specifically created that the governor-General NEVER and I5

repeat NEVER would act on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister in that regard! If

therefore Stephen Gageler doesnt understand this then I view he is not competent to give any

opinion in that regard on basis of what is constitutionally appropriate..

But dont take my word for it as I rather have the Framers of the Constitution doing their bit to so10to say save the day!.

KING v. JONES ; McEWEN v. HACKERT ; JONES v. JONES. (1972) 128 CLR 221

Barwick C.J.(1), McTiernan(2), Menzies(3), Walsh(4), Gibbs(5) and Stephen(6)JJ.15

QUOTE Barwick C.J.(1)

10. There are some basic propositions of constitutional construction which

are beyond controversy. The words of the Constitution are to be read in that

natural sense they bore in the circumstances of their enactment by the20

Imperial Parliament in 1900. That meaning remains, beyond the reach of anyAustralian Parliament, subject only to alteration by the means provided by s.

128 ofthe Constitution. The connotation of words employed in the Constitution

does not change though changing events and attitudes may in some circumstances

extend the denotation or reach of those words. These propositions are fully25

documented in the reported decisions of this Court which has the task offinally and authoritatively deciding both the connotation and the denotation

of the language of the Constitution. (at p229)END QUOTE.30HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. LYNE:First of all, he raised the question of the appointment of the Governor-General for the

Federal Executive. Now, I think there is no desire on the part of any large section of

this community to take what I may term the first step towards a severance from the35

mother-country, but the first step would be in the election of the Governor-Generalinstead of allowing his appointment to be made by the Home Government. It is but a

small connecting link between the Australasian colonies-between a Federated

Australia and the mother-country-to allow the appointment to be made by the Home

Government; and I should like to know what power that Government would have40

over any Governor-General elected in the manner desired.END QUOTE

.And also consider:.45HANSARD 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. MUNRO: I do not say we are; but the hon. gentleman told us that the arguments

made use of in the committee were sufficient to convince him that he was wrong, and I

thought the same course might have been followed on the present occasion, because if he50

was wrong in his views then most assuredly he is wrong now. The hon. member tells usthat one of the great effects of electing our own governor-general would be to put him in

the position of Abraham Lincoln-to give him similar [start page 565] powers and a similar

position. Under our form of government that position is occupied by the PrimeMinister, and no matter whether the governor-general were elected or not, he could55


6/22



not under constitutional government exercise the functions which Abraham Lincoln

exercised. No governor-general could undertake that responsibility, whether

appointed by the Crown or not. If the hon. member's argument were carried out to its

legitimate issue the people of England ought to elect their sovereign. That is really

what it means. The governor-general is to appear here as the representative of the5Queen. Under our constitution the Queen is to be in some sense present among us.

The only way in which we can have her present is through her representative, and if

her representative is to be elected by us, and not by herself, he will be not her

representative, but ours. To carry the hon. member's argument to its legitimate issue,

therefore, he ought to say that the people of the empire should elect their own10monarch. That is what it means. If the hon. member is not prepared to say that, he

ought not to go to the extent to which he wishes to go. I do not think, however, that

this is a matter to which we ought to devote much time at this stage; because, since we

have already agreed-and we have done so that we are to have a form of constitutional

government under the Crown, we must allow the Crown the power of being15represented in the union. If we carry out the proposal of the hon. member, the result

would be that we must abandon the proposed union, and have a union in a different

direction, certainly not under the Crown. The hon. member said the result of his

proposal would be to strengthen the union with England; but I think few persons willagree with him in that respect. I think the people of Australia will agree with me that20

the result of his proposal would be to weaken the union. We should, in fact, begin to

ask why we were connected with England at all. If we could appoint our own

governor-general, if we could carry, on all our legislation, and do the whole of our

business, the question would soon be asked what we had to do with England, and thenwhere would the connection be? I do not see the necessity for considering the hon.25

member's proposal at the present time. I am proud of being a citizen of the great

British empire, and shall never fail to be proud of that position. I have no desire to

weaken a single link binding us to that empire, whether as regards the appointment of

a governor-general or anything else. I desire to hold those links sacred, and if possible

to strengthen them, and I am satisfied that in making his proposal the hon. member is30not consulting the feelings of the people of Australia.

Sir GEORGE GREY: I wish to answer a few of the arguments raised by the hon.

member. I understood him to say that Abraham Lincoln would not be wanted here.

Mr. MUNRO: I did not say that. I said that our governor-general could not do what

Abraham Lincoln did in America!35

Sir GEORGE GREY: And that in that way he would have been unnecessary.

Mr. MUNRO: That be would be unable to do what Abraham Lincoln did!

Sir GEORGE GREY: But the hon. member has not touched upon this point, What

would be the effect of opening this great office to all, of raising up Abraham Lincolnsas ministers to advise the governor-general? That is the point. By raising such men,40

the governor-general would obtain better advice than he would be likely to obtain if

the offices were not open. I have no doubt whatever that this is a complete answer to

that question-that the one thing is to raise many Abraham Lincolns in the state.

Should we be the worst for it? They might not be necessary to-day or [start page 566]at any particular moment, but undoubtedly it would be a great object. There is45

another phase of the q uestion which the hon. member raised-that it would amount to

severance from the empire if the Queen did not appoint the governor-general. The

Queen does not appoint the governors now. Ministers advise the Queen as to whoshould be appointed; but I say that you should rather allow the whole people to give


7/22



the advice. Why cannot the united people of Australia be capable of choosing a man,

and advising the Queen as beneficially as a person who knows nothing about us, and

who may be in the hands of colonists at home who are spending large fortunes in an

endeavour to get into high life in England, and who may possibly mislead official

persons there as to what the desires of the colonists are. I have heard no single reason5advanced that would induce me to change my mind in the least degree. Let me hear

some good and conclusive answers given to my argument, and I will deal with them;

but do not let the subject be dismissed without any reply being made. Let us fairly

argue out one of the greatest questions that can occupy our minds in connection with

this bill. I am ready to answer any arguments that way be brought forward; but I10cannot see that there is any weight whatever in the arguments of the last speaker.

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: I am, to a great extent, in sympathy with the object

desired to be attained by Sir George Grey. I believe the highest offices of the state

ought to be open to its own citizens; but I do not think it follows that the necessary

way to bring about that result is to provide that the governor-general shall be directly15elected by the people. Probably the greatest difficulties which have arisen in the United

States are owing to the manner in which the president is there elected, If you have a direct

election of the president by the people, or such an indirect election as has been

substituted for it there, the practical result would be that at every election of the

governor-general there would be a canvassing throughout the whole dominion or20commonwealth by the representatives of respective parties, and the governor-general,

when elected, would regard himself as the nominee or head of a party, and would

devote a great part of his time and attention to securing his re-election. These we not

the objects which the hon. member, Sir George Grey, desires to attain. I am inclined

to think that this is one of those matters that will work out by itself. I am much25inclined to think that before many years are over not only the governor-general, but

the governors of the different Australian colonies, will practically be appointed, not,

perhaps, by the direct election, but with the full consent and concurrence, known in

advance, of the people of these colonies. I believe the tendency is strong in thatdirection at the present time. I know that other members of the Convention are of a30different opinion. I am now expressing my individual opinion. I believe it will be to the

interests of the Government of England to appoint the best men, men acceptable to

the people of the commonwealth, and that they will exercise all proper care to bring

about that result. I have no doubt, especially considering the greatly altered

conditions of the commonwealth, that great weight will be paid to the wishes of the35people, and that some means will be found of nominations being made, if not directly

by the Australian commonwealth, yet under such circumstances as to secure

appointments which would be known to meet with the concurrence of the people of

these colonies. I am of that opinion; I cannot say how it will work out in detail. I

believe, also, that when the people of Australia are of opinion-and surely an opinion40may be shown in other ways than by [start page 567] an act of parliament-that it is

desirable that a distinguished Australian should be appointed to the office of

governor-general, some instances will be found-if, indeed, the course is not invariably

adopted-in which distinguished Australians will be appointed to the position. That, I

take it, is all that the hon. member, Sir George Grey, desires to attain; and it can,45compatibly with the retention of our relations with the Crown, be attained by leaving

the appointment as it is proposed to be left, in the hands of the Queen.

Mr. KINGSTON: I cannot help sharing the sentiments which have been expressed

by the hon. member, Sir George Grey, as regards the desirability of our possessing the

power of at least altering the present practice with reference to the appointment of50governors. We need not go very far back in our history to recollect occasions when the


8/22



public mind was profoundly agitated on this question, and a desire was very generally

expressed in some of the colonies, at least, that the people of Australia should exercise

a much larger power in connection with the appointment of governors than they do at

present. Looking at the bill, I find that this growing sentiment is recognised to a

certain extent. It is recognised so far as the various states are concerned by provision5being made in the bill enabling the state parliaments to alter the practice as they may

see fit. We should be proceeding wisely and in a way which we should be able to

defend, if we conferred the same power on the federal parliament. Sir Samuel Griffith

has said that in the natural order of things something will be done to give effect to

Australian aspirations in this direction. Something has been done so far as the states10are concerned; and surely it is only a logical sequence that the same power should be

given to the federal parliament.

END QUOTE.

It must therefore be clear that to maintain a legal link for all and any legislation to be15

constitutionally valid the governor-General can but only be appointed by the Queen upon the

advice of the Home Office (10 Downing Street).

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I therefore would question any Governor-General not appointed

by the Home office not to be bias because such a Governor-General doesnt have the separationrequired and may be merely so to say act as some lap-dog for the Political party in power.20

Where then you raised the issue in your 23 August 2010 correspondence of Mr Bill Shorten

being your son-in-law then I view you are, so to say, too close to the oven and cannot get

involved..

The Constitution cannot be amended by the High Court of Australia, as it sought to do by25

backdoor manner in Sue v Hill, and as such for all intent and purposes a Governor-General notappointed by the Queen upon recommendation of the Home office is and remains to be in a

questionable position of bias as the Governor-General has then an implied bias as to whom

appointed or purportedly appointed him/her.

As a matter of record I did not just comprehensively defeat the Commonwealth on 19 July 200630

on all constitutional issues I raised but it was unchallenged and one issue I raised was:.

QUOTE 060719gh-address-part 2-v7

We also have the fact that constitutionally, , as is embedded in the Constitution, the

Governor-General can only be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen upon recommendation35

of the Home Office at Downing Street. This the Framers of the Constitution made veryclear as to avoid to have some , so to say, political lapdog Governor-General to an

Australian Prime Minister if the Australian Prime Minister were to be involved in the

appointment. As such, the Queen herself lacked any constitutional powers, as was

purported in the 1986 alleged proclamation, that the Prime Minister of Australia is involved40

in recommending the appointment of a Governor-General or can appoint a Governor-

General. As currently Governor-General have not been appointed by the Queen upon therequired recommendation of the Home Office at Downing Street, then clearly the

appointments purportedly by a Queen of Australia upon recommendation of the Australian

Prime minister is unconstitutional and invalid. Hence, any proclamation and writs issued by45

such pretend Governor-General is likewise unconstitutional and invalid. For this also anyother exercise of prerogative power by the purported Governor-General.

If the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions seeks to rely upon the constitutional

powers of the Commonwealth of Australia to legislate in regard of elections, then I am well50

entitled, as I do, to challenge the validity not just of legislation beyond constitutional

powers but the validity of the appointment of the purported Governor-General. After all, if

the appointments of purported Governor-Generals over the last purported elections beingheld were all unconstitutional then the issues of purported proclamations, writs,


9/22



appointments of Ministers of the Crown, judges etc all are and remain unconstitutional and

invalid.

While the high Court of Australia sought to elaborate about the coming to independence of

the Commonwealth of Australia it never did in fact at all bother to quote the relevant5Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates held in 1891, 1897 and 1898 to

support its case. It merely seeks to rely upon some kind of gradual process. One then

must ask at what date did the queen have a Governor-General representing her as the

British Monarch and at what time did the Governor-General stop doing so? It can hardly bethat this was a gradual change as for purpose of enactments it is essential to know if10legislative provisions were given royal ascent by the British monarch or not.

As the framers of the Constitution made clear the Governor-General was the link between

the people of Australia and the British Monarchy. Because we are and remain to be

governed by a British constitution act then it is applicable in full force as the Framers

intended or we disregard the entire Constitution and have become a BANANA15REPUBLIC where law and order is whatever anyone desires to make out of it to whatever

suits each person best.

The Framers of the Constitution all along contemplated that at some point of time the

Commonwealth of Australia would desire to become an INDEPENDENT nation and they20made clear that the Constitution was flexible and alive as it allowed the people by way of a

Section 128 Referendum to decide in the appropriate time for this. The most recentreferendum for a REPUBLIC was rejected and as such a clear message that we are and

remain British nationals under the governance of the British Crown.25

If the Courts could take over what a Constitution stands for then we do not need any

Constitution as we leave it up to the judges to play politicians and decide whatever law

they want to invoke.

Likewise so with politicians, that if they can change the application of the Constitutioncircumventing Section 128 Referendum provisions then why indeed have any Constitution30

at all?END QUOTE 060719gh-address-part 2-v7.

HANSARD 1-4-1891 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE35

Sir GEORGE GREY: Yes we do. The hon. member does not know what he is saying.

Every one of our laws goes home for the Queen's approval. The hon. gentleman who denies

that knows nothing of the Constitution. Although our laws are assented to here, they gohome to the Queen. Assent being given to them here only brings them into immediate

operation. Hon. members are entirely ignorant of what they are talking about. Full power is40

given to the Queen to allow or disallow our laws. There can be no stronger tie than that

binding us to Great Britain. Just fancy 4,000,000 people going to the Queen as soon as

they have an opportunity to make their own constitution, and saying, "We will still

send every law we make to that Sovereign whom we-I was going to say almost adore-

in order that she may assent to or dissent from the measure." What stronger tie than45that can bind us to Great Britain? What stronger proof can we give of our devotion to

the British interests? What will a few balls at Government House, or the presence of a

governor here, do to alter that? The very gentlemen who argue in that way say to me:

First you make a governor-general something that he ought not to be; he is advising

his ministry instead of his ministry advising him. Then immediately afterwards they50say, You must have a governor-general appointed by the British ministry in order

that he may let them know what the British interests are, and look after them. The

two things are absolutely contradictory.END QUOTE.55


10/22



It must be clear that the Framers of the Constitution extensively debated the issue as to who

would appoint the governor-General and in what situation and the constitution was not amended

by way of s.128 and neither could be so as the Governor-General is appointedQUOTE

2 Governor-General5A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her

Majestys representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have andmay exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queens pleasure,

but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of theQueen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.10

END QUOTE.

As such where the appointment is but subject to this Constitution then we have to look back

again as to what the Framers of the Constitution stated;.15HANSARD 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates ofthe National Australasian Convention)QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN: We can make an exception in favour of imperial interests. We have no

desire to interfere with the imperial prerogative in matters of war and peace!20

END QUOTE.

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Now it is coming out. The Constitution is made for the people25

and the states on terms that are just to both.

Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," noConstitution is required at all ; it can simply be provided that a certain number of

gentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and, without limitation, do what they like.30Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very life-blood of the

Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would

give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this mostimportant part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instances

before, in matters that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already35

arrived at.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the

National Australasian Convention)40

QUOTEMr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual

right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty andprotection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be

recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the45

subjects confided to the Commonwealth.END QUOTE.

Hansard 2-2-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. DEAKIN (Victoria).-50

The record of these debates may fairly be expected to be widely read, and the

observations to which I allude might otherwise lead to a certain amount ofmisconception.


11/22


12/22



Mr. DEAKIN.-It is made for the lawyers under this clause.

Sir JOHN DOWNER.-I do not think so. If you say "Trust the Parliament," no

Constitution is required at all ; it can simply be provided that a certain number ofgentlemen shall be elected, and meet together, and, without limitation, do what they like.

Victoria would not agree to that. But there is a desire to draw the very life-blood of the5

Constitution, so far as the states are concerned, by this insidious amendment, which would

give the Houses authority from time to time to put different constructions on this most

important part of the Constitution. I hope we will do as we have done in many instancesbefore, in matters that have been much debated-adhere to the decision we have already

arrived at.10

END QUOTE.

HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution ConventionQUOTE Mr. CARRUTHERS:

Mr. Barton first of all recites Dicey to show what occurs under the unwritten15

Constitution of England. But here we are framing a written Constitution. When

once that Constitution is framed we cannot get behind it.END QUOTE

.HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates20

QUOTE

Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.END QUOTE.

Hansard 6-3-1891 Constitution Convention Debates25

QUOTE Mr. THYNNE:

The union of these colonies must take place in either one or two ways, namely, either by a

unification under one all-powerful parliament, or by a federation which gives to the centralfederal parliament certain limited powers and reserves to the other parliaments all other

powers. As I think we may be in danger of overlooking some of the first principles30

connected with federation, I may be pardoned if I briefly define some of the characteristics

of a federation. I shall quote from Mr. Dicey's recent work, which is very clear in its

language. He says:

One of the characteristics of a federation is that the law of the constitution must beeither legally immutable or else capable of being changed only by some authority35

above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies, whether federal or state

legislatures, existing under the constitution.END QUOTE

.

Hansard 2-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates40 QUOTE Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH:

According to the English practice there is always a parliament either summoned or

prorogued. Coincident with the dissolution of the old parliament is the proclamation

calling the new parliament.

END QUOTE45.


Sir JOHN BRAY: I am very glad to hear that the committee considered the point,

although I think they arrived at a very unwise decision. The hon. gentleman who last50

spoke is mistaken in what I take to be the drift of all parliaments. No parliament livesout the full term of its existence. It is always dissolved before it actually expires, and


13/22



so it would be in this [start page 645] case. The practice almost invariably is for the

house to be dissolved, and a new house elected, before the expiration of the three

years, the object being that there shall always be a parliament in existence. The

intention is not that the members shall be elected for three years, but that they shall

absolutely serve for three years, and the three years ought for the sake of convenience5to date from the first meeting of parliament.

END QUOTE

.

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE10

Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education

question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the

Ministers for the time being in each state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because

we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy

for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no15one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate

provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the

Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies

may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the

people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal20

has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy afew minutes in discussing it.

END QUOTE.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates25QUOTE

Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-

In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one

indissoluble Federal Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of theUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby30

established." Honorable members will therefore see that the application of the wordCommonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not intended

there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going

to create under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it isexpedient to make provision for the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth.35

That is, for admission into this political Union, which is not a republic, which is not to

be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union by the name of

"Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.END QUOTE.40Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Sir JOHN DOWNER.-

I think we might, on the attempt to found this great Commonwealth, just advance one

step, not beyond the substance of the legislation, but beyond the form of the

legislation, of the different colonies, and say that there shall be embedded in the45Constitution the righteous principle that the Ministers of the Crown and their officials

shall be liable for any arbitrary act or wrong they may do, in the same way as any

private person would be.END QUOTE.50Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. BARTON.-

Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving

that people through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercyfrom day to day the existence of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts55


14/22



through ignorance into, the commission of any act which is unfavorable to the people

having this security, it must in its very essence be a free Constitution. Whatever any

one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the freedom of

the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their

representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is5no other way of securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a

different kind of Executive than that which we contemplate, and then overload your

Constitution with legislative provisions to protect the citizen from interference. Under

this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference. Under this Constitution

he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the daily10determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the

guarantee of freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us

have sought to remove, but every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work

can be accused of not providing for the popular liberty is something which I hope the

critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their work difficult for15them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an

Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that

Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have

provided for a Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under thisConstitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt with by a Federal20

Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that

choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our

Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people,which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly , that the Constitution shall not, nor shall

any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted , inasmuch as a court appointed by their25

own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its

provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as

the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no

citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those

who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of30the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are

bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this

kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions,

then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-sowhittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom which it gives your people35

will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are creating here,

which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will

preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext

of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the statesfrom usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things,40

I think this Convention has done well.END QUOTE.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-45

When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution

should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we

consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make anyalteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly

have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the50

people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident

that too much care has not been exercised.END QUOTE


15/22



.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. BARTON.

If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with

regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the5Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted

elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is

not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."

END QUOTE.10

HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and thatwe are all alike subjects of the British Crown.

END QUOTE15

.HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTON.-this Constitution is to be worked under a system of responsible

government20END QUOTE.


Mr. BARTON.- We have simply said that the guarantee of the liberalism of this25

Constitution is responsible government, and that we decline to impair or to infect in any

way that guarantee.END QUOTE.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates30QUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have beenmade by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but

not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which itembodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all35

have been the work of Australians.END QUOTE.


Mr. BARTON.- Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have

provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the

provisions of that Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of thepeople.

END QUOTE45.


Mr. DEAKIN.- In this Constitution, although much is written much remains

unwritten,50END QUOTE.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.-

What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious55

liberty-the liberty and the means to achieve all to which men in these days canreasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which is also


16/22



a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples

whom it will embrace and unite.END QUOTE.

HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates5QUOTE

Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about

to commit to the people of Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about

to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and confirmation, and I canconceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the10

world than this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to

vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the barons of England from a reluctant king. This

new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.END QUOTE.15HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention DebatesQUOTE

Mr. BARTON.- We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed

as the arbiter of the Constitution. . It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for

no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of saying that20

those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the

Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to theConstitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making

a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or

infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that Constitution-if not25

altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom whichit gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you

are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a

tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent,

under any pretext of constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the30

states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the Commonwealth.END QUOTE.


Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition ofparliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we

embark on federation we throw parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is

no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are not only legislative, but

constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power of40

amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition ofparliamentary sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent

body; it will cease to have the power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again,instead of parliament being supreme, the parliaments of a federation are coordinate

bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in one body. More than all45

that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed with,instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful

judiciary which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the

sole arbiter and interpreter of the constitution.END QUOTE50.

By now you may get the understanding that the Framers of the Constitution embedded legal

principles in the constitution that couldnt be subject to changes of the Parliament, or for that by

the Courts neither.


17/22



The legal principles referred to embedded in the constitution is that a Governor-General must

be representing the Queen and not the Prime Minister of Australia! As was made clear if the

Governor-General was appointed by the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Australia then

there could be a conflict of interest.I view this is precisely now existing and has been for a long time.5.

A Governor-General is only empowered to represent the queen within the jurisdiction of the

Commonwealth of Australia and no further.

.

The problem we now face is that not only are you now unable to be10

removed from the Australian Government in not having been

appointed upon the recommendation of the Home Office at 10Downing Street, but worse you are in a family relationship with a

Member of the Australian Parliament..15

The book "Law Made Simple" by Colin F. Padfield, LL.B.,D.P.A.(Lond.) on page 55:

QUOTE

"The Rule against Bias. A true judicial decision can be reached only if the judge himself isimpartial. This is an obvious requirement in a court of law or a tribunal. In R. v Rand

(1866) it was held that a judge is disqualified where (i) he has a direct pecuniary interest,20

however small, in the subject-matter in dispute; or (ii) there is real likelihood that the judge

would have a bias in favour of one of the parties.

For example, if a judge is related to, or is a friend of, one of the parties to a dispute therewould be real likelihood of bias. It is immaterial whether a judicial decision was in fact25

biased, for as was said by Lord Chief Justice Heward in R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte

McCarthy (1924): 'Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly

be seen to be done.'

As an example of pecuniary bias we may quote:30

Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852). Lord Chancellor Cottenham made decrees in a

Chancery suit in favour of a canal company. Lord Cottenham held several shares in thecompany. Held: (by the House of Lords): that the decrees be set aside on the ground of

pecurniary interest. No bias was proved in fact, nor could it be shown that Lord Cottenham35

was in any way influenced by his shareholding.

As an example of likelihood of bias we may quote:

R. v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924). A was summoned before magistrates for40

a motoring offence. The acting clerk to the justices was a member of a firm of solicitors

representing A in civil proceedings arising out of the same accident. The acting clerk didnot advise the magistrates, but he retired with them to consider their decision. Held: that as

the acting clerk was connected with the case in the civil action he ought not to advise the

magistrates in the criminal prosecution. Conviction accordingly quashed, despite the fact45

that the acting clerk took no part in the decision to convict and had not been asked by the

justices to give his opinion or advice. "END QUOTE.

R v. Lusink and another; Ex Parte Shaw (1980) 6 FLR 235 and 23650QUOTE

However in some cases the words or conduct of a judge may be suck as to lead the parties

reasonably to think that the judge has prejudged an important question in the case, and thenprohibition may issue. Of course, the court which is asked to grant prohibition will not


18/22



lightly conclude that the judge may reasonably be suspected of bias in this sense; it must be

"firmly established" that such a suspicion may reasonably be engendered in the minds of

the parties or the public, as was made clear by the court in R v Commonwealth

Conciliation and arbitration Commission; Ex parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 at553-4, in the passage cited in R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (132 CLR at 262).5

The critical question, however, is not whether a judge believes he or she has

prejudged a question, but whether that is what a party or the public might reasonably

suspect has occurred (see per Lord Denning MR in Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC Ltdv Lannon (1969) 1 QB 577 at 599, a judgment cited with approval by this court in R v10Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969)

122 CLR 546 at 553; In some circumstances repeated denials of prejudging might well

convey the impression of "protesting to much"...END QUOTE.15Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759QUOTE

The fundamental rule of English (Australian) law is that " No man can be a judge in his

own case". It has long been held that if there is bias or the appearance of bias such as

to deny justice or create the impression that justice has not been done, then that bias, or20apparent bias, is sufficient to invalidate the decision of those who made the decision.

END QUOTE

Reg v. The London County Council (1894) XI .L.R. 24

Sharp v. Carey (1897) 23 V.L.R. 248 Austin Digest 17.Reg. v. Moleswort (1893) 23 V.L.R. 582 Austin Digest 17.25

Black v. Black (1951) N.Z.L.R. 723

Ex Parte Blume (1958) W.N. (N.S.W.) 411Austin Digest 93,339,457,458

In Re O (infants) (1971) Ch 748,754 and 755.30QUOTE In the Marriage of P.N. and J.S. Axtell 7 FLR 931

The test of judicial bias as laid down by the high court is whether it has beenestablished that it might reasonably be suspected by a fair minded person that the

judge might not resolve the question before him with a fair and unprejudiced mindEND QUOTE35.

As I understand it reportedly your son-in-law Mr Bill Shorten was involved in so tho say the

backstabbing of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and regardless that my personal view was he was to

go, likewise did I view that Ms Julia Gillard was responsible for the mess also and should not

have been appointed as an advisor to the Governor-General but that your judgment may have40been clouded because of the involvement of your son-in-law in it all, at least going by media

reports.

Now that you yourself raised the conflict of interest issue I view it then appropriate to expressmy views that it underlines the danger of having a Governor-General appointed through an

Australian government and by this now have the question of conflict of interest raised where you45are related to Mr Bill Shorten. The issue is not if you actually acted with bias or will be so but

that it may appear or does appear to be so.

.

If you understand the term fraternising and that when a judicial officer fraternise with one of

the parties the subsequent decision will be without legal force, well consider that to the ordinary50Australian you may have been perceived to have fraternised with the Gillard team against Kevin

Rudd because after all your relationship with Mr Bill Shorten places this in question. After all, as

Governor-General you could have refused to accept the resignation of Mr Kevin Rudd as you

could have commissioned him to form a new government or to appoint say Mr Tony Abbottinstead. Australians now are left to wonder how much you participated, if at all, in the conspiracy55


19/22



to remove Kevin Rudd. Perhaps you could have immediately called for a DOUBLE

DISSOLUTION where the government was in utter shambles just before an election was due as

to avoid being perceived to be bias. After all, if the very first Minister you appointed to form a

government is not deemed to be able to continue then I view you ought to have there and thenavoided any conflict of interest by calling for a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION. After all where the5

election was due I view it was so to say a wrong call for you to make to then commission Ms

Julia Gillard as this due to your family relationship with Mr Bill Shorten then because to many

an issue, where as if a Government cannot work just before an election then the entire

government should have been removed, not just the first Minister..10Hansard 3-4-1891 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the

National Australasian Convention)QUOTE

Sir SAMUEL GRIFFITH: It applies only to pensions during pleasure. The object is to

prevent persons who are dependent for their livelihood upon the government, and15who are amenable to its influence, from being members of the legislature. There is no

reason that I can see why a man who has served his country, and to whom a permanent

pension has been allowed, should not be permitted to sit in the legislature. But a "pension

during pleasure" might be given; and the holder of such a pension should certainly not beallowed to become a member of parliament.20

END QUOTE.

Apply the same to your own position and you may also conclude that it may appear to the

general public that Mr Bill Shorten may have influence and may still do your decision makingprocesses.25.

Perhaps in view of your relationship with Mr Bill shorten you ought to vacate

the position as Governor-General as to uphold the dignity of the office of the

Governor-General and avoid any further questions as to any integrity?.30I may add that the reference by the opinion Stephen Gageler of 26 August 2010;QUOTE

In ordinary circumstances, by unbroken tradition,END QUOTE.35In my view is a very dangerous kind of assumption./advice.

A Governor-General cannot permit to be drawn into what might be traditions as a governor-General must observe the strict RULE OF LAW and in this case ignore any tradition that is not

within constitutional context. Likewise the comment in paragraph 3:QUOTE40

though assisted by established conventions

END QUOTE.

The Framers of the Constitution made it very clear that the Governor-General may not accept the

advice of a Minister if the governor-General held that to accept the advice would be against the45

interest of the general public! For example a Minister may recommend to declare war as a certaincountry so as to gain political advantage in an election and the Governor-General then has to

consider if in the overall context such advice should not be acted upon, etc. Hence, I view that

likewise where the Governor-General is faced with a political charged situation and also

considering what I have stated in previous correspondences then I view you may be in a conflict50

as to perhaps call a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION instead as any kind of commission for Ms JuliaGillard may now be tainted by suspicion that this was because of your relationship with her so to

say political mate Mr bill shorten who is your son-in-law..


20/22



Perhaps it might have been wiser had Mr Bill Shorten considered the conflict he was creating and

the question of the integrity of the Governor-General and stayed out of the political manoeuvre to

remove Mr Kevin Rudd as to respect your position?.

The reference by the opinion Stephen Gageler of 26 August 20105QUOTE

The notion that the Governor-General might in such circumstances be constitutionally

inhibited in the performance of her functions by reason of a perception of bias or of conflict

of interest is one that, in my opinion, finds no foothold in the structure or text of theConstitution. To imply such a constitutional inhabitation, in my opinion, would not10

enhance the performance of the high constitutional functions of the governor-General. To

the contrary, it would have the potential to undermine them.END QUOTE.

Lets use the following statement:15.


Mr. SYMON.-A written Constitution is not exhaustive. We have implanted

responsible government in this Constitution, but we have not said so in so many20words. We must have some regard to the instrument we are framing, and we ought to

look upon it as a Constitution with plenty of elasticity, under which all the

constitutional usages will apply and be interpreted. If the Commandant was a kind ofJack-in-office, and wanted to run his army where he ought not to, you could dismiss

him. If the Governor-General interfered unduly you would have to say respectfully-25

"You must not interfere in these matters; if you do, we shall repeal the Act, and there

will be no army; you will be Commander-in-Chief merely nominally." I hope thewords will not be inserted.

END QUOTE

.30

The Framers of the Constitution referred to a governor-General as If the Commandant was akind of Jack-in-office and also as indicated above extensively their concern was a Governor-

General trying to claim (if elected) more support then a Prime Minister and also the Framers of

the Constitution eluded to the legal link as well as to the relationship of a governor-General and

the Australian Parliament that could be compromised if the Governor-General so to say became a35

lap-dog for the australian government and that in essence the governor-General is to represent theCrown and not the Australian government, then it must be clear there were ample embedded

legal principles in the constitution which seems to me Stephen Gageler simply never knew

about or appeared not to know about..40While in part 4 of the opinion Stephen Gageler eluded to a s.126 appointment and that it would

not so to say deny the governor-General to exercise any powers, however what in thecircumstances might be the most appropriate constitutional way to proceed is for the Governor-General to go on vacation abroad as then all and any powers are no longer exercisable by the

Governor-General albeit the Framers of the Constitution made clear that when the governor-45

General leave the Commonwealth of Australia then the Governor-General was to pay for any

other person then performing the function of Governor-General.

Effectively if the governor-General were to have appointed a deputy, then this

Deputy would be acting as Governor-General and with all the powers while

the Governor-General was overseas on holidays and we avoid a possible50

further constitutional crisis.

.


21/22



As to what Sir Hasluck may or may not have stated in my view is of no bearing because the

constitution is not bound by whom ever served in the Office of the Governor-General but is

bound by the constitution and only the constitution!.

While in part 5 of the opinion Stephen Gageler stated:5QUOTE

Where they exist, connections and relationships of that kind must be recognised as realities.

They fall to be managed as a matter of prudence, not of legal obligations or legal

impediment.END QUOTE10.

As I comprehensively have set out above that there are legal principles embedded in the

constitution and in my view the current situation makes it untenable for you to be Governor-

General and be faced with a constitutional crisis., and as such being unable to be perceived by

the general public as to be able to impartially judge in a conflict and hence I view to remove15yourself of the Commonwealth of Australia until the problem has been resolve may be the best

solution in the circumstances..

It is sad that a person who may have no ill intentions and /or has not been guilty of any

misconduct or other questionable conduct may nevertheless be found to be a victim on20

unfortunate circumstances. But that is what life is all about.

While in part 6 and 7 of the opinion Stephen Gageler it is my view, as aCONSTITUTIONALIST that it would be inappropriate for you to have any further

involvement in these matters while this what appears to me to be constitutional crisis is going on.25

In my view the Office of the Governor-General should be above personal interest and if it means

you may have to sacrifice yourself for the good of the integrity of the Office of the Governor-

General then so be it. I for one however do view it would be appropriate that you were to use thevacation option as the way to avoid any further crisis so that you avoid any further involvement

in this matter and by this avoid any possible stain upon the Office of the Governor-General.30.

As indicated in past correspondences also I view that the OFFICE-OF-THE-GUARDIANshould be part of the Office of the Governor-General so that it can be assured that a Governor-

General is being provided with well researched opinions as I view that Stephen Gageler lacks

any proper understanding of what the constitution really stands for and how it is relevant to the35Office of the Governor-General and so the Governor-Generals position!

As you are bound to make decisions and in fact already did so after Mr Kevin Rudd was so un-

ceremoniously disposed off, then consider your position that of a impartial judge who now has a

relative on one side of the courtroom versus the other side and really could you then be deemed

to be impartial where the above quoted Authorities makes it very clear that bias or implied bias is40enough to disqualify a judge?.

Albeit I am not a lawyer, but besides being a CONSTITUTIONALIST represent parties incourts/tribunals as a Professional Advocate/Attorney I achieved at one stage that every judge that

was at a certain court location had been disqualified, and interstate judges had to be appointed to45

hear cases. This as I was an expert of having judicial officers disqualified for bias and implied

bias. As a Governor-General it appeared that you placed your arm around Ms Julia Gillard andshe placed her arm around your waist also and I view this was highly inappropriate in that regard.

Surely you wouldnt have done the same with a male Prime Minister. It was then already that as I

understood it that concerns were raised that you may not have been impartial at all at the time but50

seemed to be too close to Ms Julia Gillard. As you were at the time representing the Crown I

view that you ought to have maintained the dignity of the Crown without any special conductthat ordinary was not part of the ceremony.

.


22/22

28-8-2010 Page 22 Incorrect advice Re conflict of interest, etcPLEASE NOTE U til b it Htt // ffi f th di m h b t t t th b it

Perhaps when your daughter Chloe Bryce decided to get married to Mr Bill Shorten on 1

November 2009 you may then have done better to have considered it was appropriate then to

vacate the Office of the Governor-General as to avoid a potential conflict of interest where then

already it was reported that Mr Bill Shorten was tipped to become the leader of the ALP. (TheAge 23 August 2010 by Darren Goodsir)5.

In any event what has been done has been done and we all might like to rewrite history but we

are not able to do so and we therefore must look at the present and future and in my view it

would be untenable for you to remain in charge while this elaborate drama plays out and so along holiday outside the Commonwealth of Australia might be the the best interim solution.10.

Fancy Mr Bill Shorten to become ALP leader! Surely Stephen Gageler at least in my viewfailed to consider this issue appropriately as to what constitutional crisis this then may result to!.

For those who may have an issue with my Crummy English lets make it very clear English is15not my native language and neither did I have any formal education in the English language but I

invite anyone with their superior English to prove they are better in understanding of the

constitution then I am!.

A copy of this document will be published also for the general public to be aware of what I write20

about..

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL.

(Our name is our motto!)25.

Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

100828-governor-general q bryce-re constitutional matters-incorrect advice re conflict of...

Documents