People Power & the Constitution

For a few years I had what seemed at the start to be a preposterous idea. My closed group 'Minor Parties and/or independents Balance of\Power' allowed me to present ideas. In most cases they got shot down.

In parallel with what I was doing there were people including one group who have or plan to form a party based on the Constitution claiming that many laws passed by various Governments are unconstitutional. I felt that I could not get sensible outcomes which I could easily understand but they gave me hope.

 I remember one correspondent who wanted to help me put me out my misery by presenting a seemingly legal written statement which proved that my dream could not work. We argued various cases but when he accepted the possible chance that that particular law would not pass muster in relation to the Constitution my first break through came when he said 'That would create a huge uproar.'

I then presented my plan(would you believe) in a fax to the Governor-General. It was,- if both of the major party groupings are held to 72 seats or less that the remaining six (independents and minor parties) and their representative will have balance of power. If their representative is sufficiently dynamic he/she should be able to persuade one of the major parties to be prepared to accept the Treasury Benches and accept that he/she (the representative of the six) can go to the Governor- General to ask to become the Prime Minister.

At least there could be one firm outcome if the G-G comes back and says  'No Way." A few anxious days passed. Even before a week passed

I went to a local solicitor ask about my question which involves using the Constitution as a basis. I was told that no one in Griffith could even think about this and I was recommended to contact a prominent Sydney company. That company  directed me to the Law Society. A branch of that organisation said that they could not help but that they could give me contacts for 3 Constitutional lawyers. Two of them bowed out so I got another 3. Of the 6, 3 of them said that it was out of their scope.

As the Constitutional lawyers bowed out or chose not to answer I started to get quite hopeful, there was letter in the mail which was like Manna from Heaven. An assistant to  the G-G sent this message ‘The Governor-General cannot comment or become involved in the matters you have raised.’ If the strategy was preposterous it would have only required a simple response to keep me quiet.

My only option was to question whether it is possible for someone in Griffith to get to understand the Constitution. That person was me. On the internet it showed that there are 8 chapters. By observation, only chapter 1 could apply. Chapter 1  has 128 sections. Most were ruled out due to their title. For those whose title showed promise I found that by clicking on each one a ‘pop up’ appears. It took no more than 10 minutes to realise that no combination of those 128 could define that  if neither major party could get no more than 72 seats that the Governor-General MUST appoint the Prime Minister from one of those parties.

During this process I was encouraged by a very logical person. We challenge to debate  anyone who says that it would be impossible for our scenario to apply. .

The independents and minor party members would have balance of power.

If the representative of those  can arrange for one of the major parties to become associated in return for the Treasury benches, that the representative could go to the Governor-General to ask to be appointed Prime Minister.

For 118 years, it has made sense for people to say that voting for an independent or a minor party seemed to be a wasted vote. Our now slightly larger group who have been researching what has been going wrong with our country, now believe that we could be on the cusp of a political system including a third political force.

 

 

 

A break through via the constitutional lawyers and the Office of the Governor-General seems to confirm the old adage that ‘nothing is impossible.