Queensland Constitution & your rights ,Brian Shaw

Queensland Constitution Act 1867
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEG…
Requirement for referendum
53 Certain measures to be supported by referendum
(1) A Bill that expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of
or alteration in the office of Governor or that expressly or
impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of
this Act namely—
sections 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B; and
this section 53
shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the
Queen unless it has first been approved by the ELECTORS in
accordance with this section and a Bill so assented to
consequent upon its presentation in contravention of this
subsection shall be of no effect as an Act.
( NO STATE REFERENDUM HELD? see Australia Act 1986 below )

The illegal Australia Act 1986
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resour…
Omitting meaning = To fail to include or mention; leave out: omit a word

Australia Act 1986 illegal Amendments to the Constitution Act of Queensland
13. (1) The Constitution Act 1867-1978 of the State of Queensland is in
this section referred to as the Principal Act.
(2) Section 11A of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (3)—
(a) by omitting from paragraph (a)—
(i) “and Signet”; and
(ii) “constituted under Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the
United Kingdom”; and
(b) by omitting from paragraph (b)—
(i) “and Signet”; and
(ii) “whenever and so long as the office of Governor is vacant or
the Governor is incapable of discharging the duties of
administration or has departed from Queensland”.
(3) Section 11B of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) by omitting “Governor to conform to instructions” and substituting
“Definition of Royal Sign Manual”;
(b) by omitting subsection (1); and
(c) by omitting from subsection (2)—
(i) “(2)”;
(ii) “this section and in”; and
(iii) “and the expression ‘Signet’ means the seal commonly used for
the sign manual of the Sovereign or the seal with which
documents are sealed by the Secretary of State in the United
Kingdom on behalf of the Sovereign”.
(4) Section 14 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (2) by
omitting “, subject to his performing his duty prescribed by section 11B,”.
( NO NATIONAL or STATE REFERENDUM HELD? )

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1979
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legis…
I………….. , do swear that I will bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors
according to law, that I will well and truly serve Her in the Office of Chief
Justice (or Justice) of the High Court of Australia and that I will do right
to all manner of people according to law without fear or favour, affection or
ill-will. So help me God)

Australian Commonwealth Constitution 1900
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resour…

Section 128 Mode of altering the Constitution
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following
manner:
The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an
absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less
than two nor more than six months after its passage through both
Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and
Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of
members of the House of Representatives.
But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute
majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it
with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not
agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned
House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed
law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which
has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other
House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to
which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the
Governor-General may submit the proposed law as last proposed
by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any
amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the ELECTORS
in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the
House of Representatives.
When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be
taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the
qualification of electors of members of the House of
Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth,
only one-half the ELECTORS voting for and against the proposed law
shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.
And if in a majority of the States a majority of the ELECTORS voting
approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the ELECTORS.
( NO NATIONAL or STATE REFERENDUM HELD? )

QLD Oppression and History lesson of how we got to where we are today.

– 2000 Years Ago – Authorities at the time crucified a Man named Jesus Christ for speaking out about the injustices against his people

– 200 Years Ago, the British Authorities were sending Convicts to Australia for Crimes as little as Stealing a Loaf of Bread.

– 150 Years Ago, Authorities around the world including United States legalised Slavery, Whipping, Rape & Torture to a select group of people and robbed them of their rights to freedom

– 70 Years Ago, Adolf Hitler created the Nazi Party who systematically discriminated against selected people (teachers, medical staff, lawyers & judges and groups of people based on their race and religion) and robbed them of their rights, then ordered the killing of approx 17 million people leading the entire world into war..

– 40 Years Ago, Idi Amin the 3rd President of Uganda, was characterised by human rights abuse, ethnic cleansing, corruption and the killing of approx 500,000 social economic groups with discrimination of certain groups of people by his authority.

– 30 Years Ago – The Khmer Rough took away the basic human rights of the people of Cambodia, who they spoke to, what they wore, how they acted, separated children from their parents resulting in the killing fields of Cambodia, deaths estimated at 1 million people..

– 10 years Ago to Present– Kim Jong-il – Supreme leader of North Korea, has 200,000 political prisoners with no freedom of the press, religion, political opposition or equal education, virtually every aspect of their lives is controlled by the government.

Due to an unprecedented set of circumstances Queenslanders now find themselves in a unique political position.

After 100 years of Political Manoeuvring we have NO SENATE, We have NO BILL OF RIGHT, We have a VERY WATERED DOWN CONSTITUTION, we have a government with 78 SEATS from 1 PARTY (Liberal National Party),

We have a Premier who believes HE ALONE knows what is RIGHT FOR EACH and EVERY QUEENSLANDER..

He can change laws without consultation of the judiciary, without the legal profession, without consulting with the committee process.

In 12 hours he can change what have been basic accepted legal rights for the last 600 years.

In Queensland there are two levels of people… No different to all the previous DICTATORS.

TODAY… Campbell Newman and the Queensland Authorities are dictating to the Queensland people who we can be friends with, who we can associate with, where we can work, what we can wear, places we can go, affecting freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the Number 1 right of the Democratic Nations of the World, Freedom of Association which can affect each and everyone of the 4.7 Million Queenslanders..

QUEENSLANDERS…NOW IS THE TIME…..FOR THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE….. WE DEMAND A REFERENDUM FOR THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF A SENATE AND A BILL OF RIGHTS…

More innocent people being harassed, stripped and detained by police

Another prime example of the public being harassed under the new laws. How many other church groups do they intend to get off side.

 

 

Sunshine state headed for darker days without an upper house | The Courier-Mail

Sunshine state headed for darker days without an upper house
PAUL WILLIAMS THE SUNDAY MAIL QLD DECEMBER 08, 2013 12:00AM

Premier Campbell Newmans Government has allowed complex and contentious legislation to slip through like castor oil.

PREMIER Campbell Newman is right about one thing. Queenslanders will not vote for more politicians.But that doesnt mean the idea of restored Legislative Council couldnt succeed at any referendum to bring back an upper house of parliament. No, we dont need more politicians. We just need the same number, in different roles, doing a better job.And oppositions usually agree. Politically and morally defeated by governments huge majorities in lower houses since the chamber was abolished more than 90 years ago, opposition parties have long called for a new Legislative Council.

The LNP, as recently as 2009, overwhelmingly supported the Councils return at its party conference in 2009.The trouble is those same oppositions dump the idea as soon as they sniff electoral victory. No government willingly subjects itself to the prying eyes of scrutiny, and usually has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the sunlight.But if theres one state in the Commonwealth that screams out for stronger scrutiny of government, its Queensland.Plagued by corrupt and authoritarian regimes from both sides of the political divide, the sunshine state has suffered some politically dark eras.Even legislative committees in a single house of parliament cannot help if most or all of them are dominated by government MPs. No government drone will criticise the ruling party in a committee report if it means losing preselection.Few Queenslanders were therefore surprised by recent events where complex and contentious legislation, ranging from bikies to sex offenders to workers compensation, slipped through parliament like castor oil.But many were genuinely gobsmacked when the Government sacked the PCMC for having the temerity to do its job: asking uncomfortable questions the government doesnt like.
The Newman Government already avoids sending key bills to committee and, even when it does, accepts committee findings just half the time. But even this poor record couldnt have foreshadowed the cavalier dismantling of a key democratic instrument.It was old-style Queensland politics where governments insist on getting their way. In the past, premiers were lauded as strong leaders for what amounted to bullying.Today, voters are more sophisticated and are more likely to know and condemn naked political self-interest when they see it.Thats why Im not convinced a referendum – a necessary ballot to ask Queenslanders on a restored upper house, added to the Constitution in 1934 – would necessarily fail. Its just a matter of having the right model.The key point is that a restored Council of 30 MPs could come at the cost of the lower house – currently 89 MPs but easily reduced to 59 or 60. There would be no real increase in MP salaries, offices or support staff, and ministers, except premiers and treasurers, would be sourced from both houses.But its crucial a restored upper house is elected on a different voting system to the winner-take-all model used to elect the Legislative Assembly. Otherwise the upper house would be a carbon copy of the lower, and whats the point?For simplicity, why not use the current Senate system of multi-member constituencies? Queensland could be divided into six regions of equal population, each electing five MPs on proportional representation.To avoid the hidden preference farce that plagued the September federal poll, voters would number all squares themselves, and no party with fewer than 5 per cent of the vote would be elected.We know that governments listen when votes are at risk. If the matter became an election issue, government strategists might think again.Better still, if the Government were presented with a petition with hundreds of thousands of signatures then no government could ignore calls for reform.On simple arithmetical alone, the LNP will be in office for a very long time. While we enjoy the ride, we might as well have a parliament that at least does its job.Dr Paul Williams is a Griffith University School of Humanities Senior Lecturer

via Sunshine state headed for darker days without an upper house | The Courier-Mail.

Queensland bikie laws breach international fair trial standards – Amnesty International Australia

Queensland bikie laws breach international fair trial standards

5 November 2013, 05:21PM Topics: Other

Queensland\’s new bike laws do away with the notion of innocent until proven guilty which could lead to arbitrary detentions and an undermining of the independence of the judiciary.

Amnesty is concerned prosecutions under the new Queensland bikie laws

fail to meet international fair trial standards.

MORE AUSTRALIAN STORIES

ACT: Marriage quality bill

Human rights violations

Closing the door on desperate boat arrivals

Mandatory sentences

The laws give mandatory sentences of up to 25 years in addition to a standard sentence where a person is accused of being a member and/or officer of a criminal association.

“The laws passed are aimed at cracking down on ‘outlaw bikie gangs’ but potentially affect a wider group of people, including those that aren’t affiliated with bikie groups, something the Queensland government has failed to acknowledge,” said Michael Hayworth, Amnesty International Australia spokesperson.

“We share concerns already voiced by the Queensland Law Society, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and Queensland Council for Civil Liberties.\”

Broad laws cover all associations not just bikies

“One of the major issues we have is the language of the Act is so broad that in Amnesty International’s experience, they are open to abuse,” said Hayworth.

The laws focus on associations of people which include corporations, unincorporated associations, clubs or leagues or any other group of three or more people whether the group is legal or illegal.

Covering more than just ‘bikie gangs’ the laws define people as ‘participants’ in associations where they are a member, sought to be a member, attended more than one meeting or participated in any other way in the affairs of the association.

There is no mention of bikes or criminal activity in the definition of association.

A participant is deemed to be a ‘vicious lawless associate’ when they commit a declared offence while they are participating in the association.

The laws reverse the burden of proof, forcing those accused of being ‘vicious lawless associates’ or ‘office bearers’ of the association to prove that they are not participants in criminal associations. This severely undermines the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty that all Queenslanders enjoy.

Michael Hayworth, Amnesty International Australia spokesperson

The difference here is that the individual must prove that the association doesn’t exist for the purposes of engaging in declared criminal offences.

A ‘vicious lawless associate’ is then sentenced to 15 years jail on top of the sentence they receive for the declared offence.

If the person is an officer of the association and cannot prove otherwise they are liable to a further ten years.

Guilty until proven innocent?

“The laws reverse the burden of proof, forcing those accused of being ‘vicious lawless associates’ or ‘office bearers’ of the association to prove that they are not participants in criminal associations,” Hayworth said.

“This severely undermines the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty that all Queenslanders enjoy.”

The combination of the broad definitions and the requirement for the accused to prove their innocence makes any sentence under these new laws fundamentally unfair .

Arbitrary detention

“Along with a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, everyone has the right to liberty. But these laws turn this concept upside down.”

This means the state can only put someone in prison (and therefore remove their liberty) when they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that that person is guilty of a recognized criminal offence.

The changes to the bail laws mean that courts have little option but to refuse bail to those accused of participating in criminal organisations, unless the person demonstrates reasons that they should not be in jail.

“There are two problems here: (1) the burden of proof is reversed, meaning the accused person has to prove they should not be in custody rather than the state proving they should be in jail; and (2) people have the right not to be in prison, even before a trial, unless it is proven to be necessary,” Hayworth warned.

Pre-trial detention under these circumstances could potentially be arbitrary and inconsistent with the most basic standards of human rights law.

Interference with the judiciary

“The unfairness of trials, arbitrary detention and attacks on the presumption of innocence are not the fault of the courts. They are a direct result of the government’s attempts to crack down on criminal associations.

“These laws and the government’s statements on cases before the courts represent a significant overreach of parliamentary and executive power.

“Amnesty International is calling for the legislation to either be reversed or completely overhauled to address these serious breaches of human rights,” Hayworth added.

via Queensland bikie laws breach international fair trial standards – Amnesty International Australia.