Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Neville

Registered:
Posts: 351
Reply with quote  #1 
Victoria's Attorney-General, Mr Rob Hulls, is conutinuing his pathetic crusade to "update" our legal system.  A few years ago he wanted to get rid of magistrates because he thought the title was too colonial, and QCs have already given way to SCs.  The real worry though is his comment that substituting ''the DPP for the Queen or Regina reflects the legal and political independence from the United Kingdom and its monarch that has been achieved by Australia.''  Australia is, of course, independant from the monarch of the United Kingdom, but last time I looked the Australian monarch is still pretty central to the Constitution of the State of Victoria.  The Queen appoints the Governor and the Governor in Council appoints the Director of Public Prosecutions. 

http://www.theage.com.au/national/victorian-courts-banish-outdated-queen-20091216-kxhk.html
Tolgron

Registered:
Posts: 195
Reply with quote  #2 
It all seems rather petty and wasteful, if you ask me. Rather than worrying about minute details such as in whose name the court is held and the ridiculous desire to sound "modern", couldn't Mr Hulls pass legislature that actually strengthens and regulates the courts instead?

You know, something that could actually be of use of to Victoria's judicial system? Not just aesthetics and stealth republicanism.
Neville

Registered:
Posts: 351
Reply with quote  #3 
Here's the letter I just sent to The Age, not that they are likely to publish it. 

Dear Sir
 

Mr Hulls says removing the Queen from Victoria’s legal language reflects Australia’s “legal and political independence from the United Kingdom and its monarch”.  Obviously Australia and Victoria are independent from the monarch of the United Kingdom, but the monarch of Australia continues to have a very central constitutional role to play in Victoria.   Mr Hulls’ justification suggests a poor understanding of the Australian and Victorian constitutions, the Australia Acts of 1986, and the role of the Australian Crown.  Or perhaps it is just a blatant attempt to cover up a personal republican agenda?  Either way it does not inspire much confidence in the State’s Attorney-General.

Royalistdefender

Registered:
Posts: 849
Reply with quote  #4 
Here is what a Australian monarchist residing in Canada said about the article on the Australian Monarchist League on  Facebook.


           "As an Australian in the Dominion of Canada, I am 100% disgusted at this move. It shows rabid disregard for the Constitution and will appeal to the republican rabble,alone."


Royalistdefender

Registered:
Posts: 849
Reply with quote  #5 
Here is a post on the Australian Monarchist League Facebook group by Philip Benwell about the "Director of Public Prosecutions":


         

Philip Benwell I have just finished a radio interview with Major-General Keating, Chair of the Republican Movement regarding the visit of Prince William and the change in the Victorian Legal system to replace the word ‘Queen’ with the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions).

Amongst the reasons listed against having Prince William speak... at the Governor’s Australia day reception were the fact that the Prince:

Will be King by right of birth
Is a Protestant
Hasn’t been here since he was a baby
60-80% of Australians want a republic.

General Keating is wont to rely on polls of a few hundred people but then comes up with reasons why not to accept the verdict of the Australian people in 1999 when they overwhelmingly rejected a republic. The 1999 Referendum is the only decisive poll of the Australian people, not the piddling newspaper polls which quickly disappear when they show strong support for retaining our system of Constitutional Monarchy.

See More 2 hours ago · · · Report
 
Peter Dickinson-Starkey
I support the Crown in my native homeland 100%. It has given us stability and a great resonance across the globe for over 100 years. Let's stop the foolishnes of going down a path not needed in Australia.
about an hour ago · Report
 
Matthew Mast
Im so fed up with Republicanism by stealth by State governments! It is despicable.
The Crown is the state, not the current government.
about an hour ago · Report
 
Jason Donald O'Conal
I agree. This 'republicanism by stealth' is rather infuriating.
about an hour ago · Report
 
Matthew Mast
Hopefully a Liberal Government would be more sympathetic to the cause and listen to possible suggestions to reinstate the title of "Queens Counsel" and amend the problem mentioned above.
about an hour ago · Report
 
Brandon Walker
Mr Benwell, Mr Hulls has showed his contempt for the people in a previous email reply to me requesting a case appeal on the grounds of violation of aims of criminal law and offence to the community. In the reply he told me, that it wa sout of the Attonrey General's jurisdiction to appeal court decisions due to separation of powers, which of course ... See Moreis a lie. That combined with the government's disregard for the wants of the majority of people, and still continuing with legislation which offends these wants is a major injustice. Is there any legal mechanism to which we can make the government accountable? I sent the details of the dishonesty to Ted Baillieu and I hope these cunning moves and pernicious manipulation are borught into the public arena.
53 minutes ago · Report
 
Brandon Walker
The government know that if you put a frog in boiling water it will jump out, but if you begin to rise the temperature of the water whilst the frog is in the water then it won't budge and will die! that is how they aim to achieve a republic, not by giving the public a choice, but by getting rid of it unofficially. And then telling them that it is not relevant anymore so they do get it. The only thing we can do is shine light upon this manipulation.
48 minutes ago · Report
 
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #6 
Is this the 'down under' version of activists judges, or was this 'individual' elected, and subject to electoral wrath?

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Neville

Registered:
Posts: 351
Reply with quote  #7 

The Attorney-General is basically the minister in charge of the Department of Justice.  So yes, Baron, he is just an elected politician.  His electrate is Niddrie, a solidly Labor seat, so unfortunately Mr Hulls will be around for some time to come. 

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #8 
He's elected, but not to that position, -  like the US's Speaker of the House, or Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee?



__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,743
Reply with quote  #9 
No, like a Cabinet Secretary. I know that in the US those can't be in Congress, if they are they have to resign from it. In Britain and other countries with the Westminster system it's different, ministers have to be in one or other chamber so that they can answer to Parliament. The more senior positions now are expected to be in the Commons in Britain, as the more powerful chamber.

The electorate Neville speaks of will be that of a district which elected this unpleasing individual to the Victorian Parliament, from whence he was appointed a minister. He could be moved or dismissed from that office by the Victorian Premier, but only his electorate or, I assume, a vote of the chamber could remove him from the Parliament.
Neville

Registered:
Posts: 351
Reply with quote  #10 
No, he is not elected to that position.  It is up to the Premier to decide who makes it into the cabinet, and then who gets what ministries.  He could loose his positon if the Premier decides to "reshuffle" the cabinet.  Mr Hulls is Deputy Premier, and this week is Acting Premier.  Perhaps that is what is giving him the confidence to arrogantly push his personal agenda.  

Another thing he seems to miss is that the Director of Public Prosecutions, his modern choice to replace the Queen, is still an appointment by the Governor in Council; and the Governor is still appointed by the Queen.  His arrogance is monumental; and the blatent lie that these "reforms" have nothing to do with republicanism is just a down right insult to people of Victoria.

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
No, like a Cabinet Secretary. I know that in the US those can't be in Congress, if they are they have to resign from it. In Britain and other countries with the Westminster system it's different, ministers have to be in one or other chamber so that they can answer to Parliament. The more senior positions now are expected to be in the Commons in Britain, as the more powerful chamber.

The electorate Neville speaks of will be that of a district which elected this unpleasing individual to the Victorian Parliament, from whence he was appointed a minister. He could be moved or dismissed from that office by the Victorian Premier, but only his electorate or, I assume, a vote of the chamber could remove him from the Parliament.


Gotcha,
Must be elected to the Parliament, then Appointed to the post.
So, the people of his riding could (but won't) un-elect him for this nonsense, AND the appointing authority to dismiss him from the post (but they won't), and the People of all Victoria suffer under the actions of a man elected by one riding, and appointed by a fellow who also only carried one riding (albeit a another one).

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #12 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/6832692/The-Queen-dropped-from-Victorias-legal-system.html
Royalistdefender

Registered:
Posts: 849
Reply with quote  #13 
Here is what the Australian Monarchist League Chairman said in a newsletter:


       
VICTORIAN DPP  MOVE OBVIOUSLY REPUBLICAN INSPIRED

“I am all for modernisation”, said Australian Monarchist League National
Chair, Philip Benwell MBE, “but the manner in which recent moves in Victoria
to substitute the name of the Queen with 'the Director of Public
Prosecutions' have been introduced strongly imply republicanism by stealth.”

The Victorian Attorney-General. Robert Hulls, explains the change as
reflecting “the legal and political independence from the United Kingdom and
its monarch that has been achieved by Australia." (Herald-Sun) He is also
reported as stating: "Having cases presented in the name of the Queen of
England is an outdated colonial tradition that really has passed its use by
date." (ABC News)

“That Australia is totally independent from the Government and Parliament of
the United Kingdom is unarguably correct,” Mr Benwell said “but Mr Hulls
should know that there is no such person or office as 'the Queen of
England'. To use such terminology is mischievous as, in so far as Australia
and its law are concerned, the Queen we talk about is the Queen of
Australia, designated so by Act of the Australian Parliament!”

“The Victorian Opposition should call for Mr Hulls to be censured for
allowing his republicanism to overcome the dignity of the office of
Attorney-General and for bringing the Government of Victoria into disrepute
by making such erroneous, emotionally prejudiced and outlandish statements.”
Royalistdefender

Registered:
Posts: 849
Reply with quote  #14 
Also, here is an article about the fight between republicans and monarchists:


      
The Victorian Convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Brett Hogan, had sections of a letter to The Age printed today. Please see below. For further background see:
 
 
 
 

 

 

18-12-2009

 

 

Tension over Queen's removal

 

Author: By PAUL AUSTIN STATE POLITICAL EDITOR
Publisher: Fairfax
Publication: The Age , Page 9 (Fri 18 Dec 2009)
Keywords: Brett (1) Hogan (1)
Edition: First
Section: News


MONARCHISTS and republicans have gone to war over the State Government's decision to dump the Queen from Victoria 's legal system.

Supporters of the Queen yesterday accused Attorney-General and Acting Premier Rob Hulls of trying to transform Victoria into a republic by stealth.

But Mr Hulls, an avowed republican, hit back, saying monarchists were inventing ludicrous conspiracy theories when all he was trying to do was modernise the state's justice system.

It follows Mr Hulls' announcement that from January 1, criminal prosecutions in Victoria will be brought in the name of the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than the Queen.

The Victorian convener of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Brett Hogan, yesterday accused Mr Hulls of "playing the republic card".

Mr Hogan said there were good reasons for criminal legal proceedings to be brought in the name of the Queen.

"Having legal cases go forward on behalf of the Queen or the Crown reflects the fact that the case against an accused is pursued on behalf of the state as a whole, not the person who currently happens to hold the office of Director of Public Prosecutions," he said.

"For as long as the Crown remains an integral part of the Victorian Constitution, it is entirely appropriate that it also retains an integral place in our legal system."

But Mr Hulls said the use of the Queen's name on indictments was a relic from the colonial era.

He said "rabid monarchists" were wrong to suggest the change was part of a conspiracy to undermine the monarchy.

Former Labor premier John Cain, who introduced the office of the DPP in the 1980s, welcomed Mr Hulls' move as a logical and important legal reform.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.