AN EXERCISE IN LOGIC

The Australian Government has published a document entitled Finance Circular 2009/09 and you may access it here: http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/finance-circulars/2009/09.html

Logically speaking, if the Australian Government fails to administer its Acts properly, the victims are entitled, under the CDDA Scheme, Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration, Attachment A, ( There is No Attachment A, but there is Appendix 1. This is a claim form.

The Australian Government by S 61 has the executive power of the Commonwealth vested in The Queen, but that is qualified by S 62 and 63 which requires the Governor General to act with advice from the Executive Council, and the Executive Council is required to administer the Constitution. If it fails to do so in accordance with its duties under S 51 Constitution, and that failure of administration causes loss or detriment, then logic dictates that the Australian Government must compensate the victims of its negligence.

The People of Australia have charged the Australian Government by referenda, on some 46 occasions, including the first in 1899 with the responsibility expressed in s 51 Placitum (vi ) Australian Constitution, to take over and control the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth, and when they have failed to do this, the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 applies. The Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 may be accessed and read here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fmaaa1997321/

S 33 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 authorises the Finance Minister to approve Act of Grace Payments, when administrative deficiencies have caused detriment to any Australian subject of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second our Queen. It says:

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 1997 – SECT 33
Finance Minister may approve act of grace payments
(1) If the Finance Minister considers it appropriate to do so because of special circumstances, he or she may authorise the making of any of the following payments to a person (even though the payment or payments would not otherwise be authorised by law or required to meet a legal liability):
(a) one or more payments of an amount or amounts specified in the authorisation (or worked out in accordance with the authorisation);
(b) periodical payments of an amount specified in the authorisation (or worked out in accordance with the authorisation), during a period specified in the authorisation (or worked out in accordance with the authorisation).
Note:See also subparagraph 65(2)(a)(ia) (which allows regulations to be made about the Finance Minister considering a report from specified persons before authorising a total amount that is more than a specified amount).
(3)Conditions may be attached to payments under this section. If a condition is breached, the payment may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Note:Act of grace payments under this section must be made from money appropriated by the Parliament. Generally, an act of grace payment can be debited against an Agency’s annual appropriation, providing that it relates to some matter that has arisen in the course of its administration.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has the primary Administrative Responsibility to take over and/or control the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth, and has failed to do so, by allowing the Police forces of the States to continue as independent entities, and by defective legislation, allowed the Parliament of the Commonwealth to legislate without effect, because S 8 Australian Federal Police Act 1979 is not effectively administered, and the High Court, Federal Court of Australia, Family Court of Australia and Federal Magistrates Court of Australia are ineffective with regulations made to close them to all comers, and only allow a selected elite, called Lawyers, or Australian Lawyers, to access their services, and failed to ensure the integrated and unitary Legal System provided by Ch III Constitution is maintained throughout the Commonwealth.

Logically everyone who has been administratively disadvantaged by the exercise by any Judge or Magistrate, Tribunal or VCAT, QCAT CTTT, AAT, SSAT or any other feral animal created in breach of s 79 Constitution which mandates “judges” anytime in the past 30 years, has a claim and should investigate the remedy. This includes persons disadvantaged by the Child Support Agency, maladministration and corruption by the Insolvency and Trustee Service of Australia and Trustees in Bankruptcy, The Australian Taxation Office, and other agencies that have been running riot, because the Australian Government Solicitor is essentially corrupt, and fails to abide the Model Litigant Guidelines published under5 S 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903.

The liability is huge, but all people who have suffered or are suffering legal harassment by Shire Councils, Government Departments both State and Federal, Police or any other Civic Compliance Agency, should have their remedy. This includes the 183 litigants who took part in the Class Action in the County Court in Victoria at Geelong, where the Commonwealth was the defendant.

Look into it and consider its consequences.

Community Law Resource Group