Exclusive report by Jim O’Toole
Culleton advised by UK Supreme Court his senate expulsion was wrong at law leaving the way open for other expelled senators to reclaim their seats
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has advised Western Australia Senator-in-exile Rod Culleton the High Court of Australia has erred by removing him from the senate.
In January Culleton filed an appeal, contrary to legal advice, against his senate expulsion in the Supreme Court(Privy Council) citing s47 of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia, which had been ignored by the High Court.
This section states: ‘Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.’
The High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, expelled him from the senate in 2017 on a referral from then Attorney General, Senator George Brandis.
“Preliminary guidance from my case manager in the UK Supreme Court referred me to a legal maxim from a case precedent, Hilary Term [2014] UKSC 3.”
The case precedent cites “….. Blackstone (Commentaries on the Laws of England) says that the whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its original from this one maxim: ‘that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament, ought to be examined, discussed, and adjudged in that house to which it relates, and not elsewhere.’
“The senate now has no choice but to remove all of those candidates who filled casual vacancies created by the High Court and reinstate me, because a legal maxim is the final say, there is no law above it,” Culleton said.
“This includes Jacquie Lambie and Bob Day who have indicated to me they will now contest their expulsions by the High Court under s44 of the Constitution.
“The senate will have to decide on my eligibility to sit as a senator.”
Tomorrow Culleton intends to inform the Clerk of the senate of this legal maxim leaving the Clerk no choice but to ask the senate to reinstate any senator expelled by the High Court.
“The Parliament is compelled and bound by this maxim. The senate cannot abuse its powers and must immediately ask the surrogate senators to remove themselves from the House as they are only filling a vacancy,” he said.
“Furthermore, I believe those unelected surrogate Senators are now impersonating a Commonwealth Public Official and putting the Senate in disrepute through their unlawful representations and I quote Odgers Australian Senate Practice, 13th Edition, 2012 page 160:
“Presumably if a conviction is quashed on appeal the vacancy which was taken to have occurred upon conviction and sentence is taken not to have occurred. If such a presumed vacancy has been filled the filling of the vacancy would then also be void.”
www.cairnsnews.org 
The Australia Act is invalid because Western Australian government did not have the authority to agree to its acceptence as section 73 of the state constituiion was not complied with. The Australia act altered the powers of all governors.. I believe Queensland constitution has a similar section.There was NO referendum in WA on this matter in 1985 or 86
Please note the last line.
73 . .
(2) A Bill that —
(a) expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor; or
(b) expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of the Legislative Council or of the Legislative Assembly; or
(c) expressly or impliedly provides that the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly shall be composed of members other than members chosen directly by the people; or
(d) expressly or impliedly provides for a reduction in the numbers of the members of the Legislative Council or of the Legislative Assembly; or
(e) expressly or impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of this Act, namely —
sections 2, 3, 4, 50, 51 and 73,
shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless —
(f) the second and third readings of the Bill shall have been passed with the concurrence of an absolute majority of the whole number of the members for the time being of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, respectively; and
(g) the Bill has also prior to such presentation been approved by the electors in accordance with this section,
Laurence Heal
LikeLike
Correct, Old Kodger we have a copy of the document.Editor
LikeLike
To Goresh,
The Australia Act 1986 seeks to change the 1901 constitution, ie. change The Colony of Australia. to an independent state. Therefore it DOES require a referendum, and is subsequently “no law at all”.
If my information is correct, and I have to admit to not having researched this, it is my comprehension that Queen Elizabeth 2[…] signed the act at the top of the page, thereby merely noting it’s contents, NOT assenting to it. Result? No royal assent (1901).
LikeLike
It was removed in Australia too. Thanks Editor
LikeLike
Did PM Tony Blair invent the UK Supreme Court to legalise his dodgy dealings in the Parliament like when he had the act of treason struck out so he and others could not be prosecuted for their Capital crimes ?
LikeLike
Well done Senator Culleton.
I hope to see The Great Australian Party gain momentum from your win too.
LikeLike
Behind you 100% MR (Honorable Senator) Culleton
LikeLike
If you read the article you will see where we refer to the Supreme Court of England which was the Privy Council. We are well aware of this. So is Culleton’s team in London. You would have to ask the court why they are assisting Culleton.Editor
LikeLike
Queens Elizabeth did not sign the Australia Act. She signed the top of the first page recognising the bill, but she did not sign at the end of the document authorising it as required by protocol. It is not legitimate. Editor
LikeLike
The Judicial Committee consists of senior judges who are Privy Councillors: they are PREDOMINATELY Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom AND senior judges from the Commonwealth. It is often referred to as the Privy Council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council
LikeLike
The Australia Acts were also passed by the UK parliament and signed by Queen Elizabeth. Even ignoring the fact of the legitimacy of the constitutional right to pass such an act in Australia, the Privy Council is bound by the Australia Acts because it is BRITISH law, the Privy Council cannot rule on any Australian High Court matter unless asked t by the High Court according to BRITISH law.
LikeLike
Again you sprout bullshit. The Supreme Court of the UK is NOT the Privy Council. It has never, does not currently nor will it have jurisdiction over Australia. In fact, it does not even have jurisdiction over the entire UK, having no jurisdiction in Scotland:
“The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.”
But hey, don’t take my word for it, read it yourself on their web site.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/
LikeLike
Complete and utter bullshit. There was never any referendum since none was required.
LikeLike
The Australia Acts were an acts of the UK, Australian Commonwealth and Australian state parliaments. As a result they were all enacted on different dates but all came into force on the same date. There was no change to the constitution and no need for a referendum.
LikeLike
Sorry buddy, the Australia ACT was voted NO to at a referendum.. yet Johnny Howard lied to the Queen and she signed the top of the document to state that it had been seen, however a signature is required at the bottom of the document to state it’s assent… It was not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems to me that since the Australia act 1986, seeks to change the structure of the governing body in Australia under the 1901 constitution, ie. removal of the reigning monarch, “heir and successor of Queen Victoria”, without a referendum (mandatory to change the constitution), that the Australia Act is unconstitutional and therefore is ultra vires ab initio
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Laurence the matter is still before the Supreme Court and no date has been set for a final judgement.Editor
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cairns News
When will the judgement be available to be read, and where can a copy be obtained from.
The pollies are already saying it is false news. (ha ha )
Laurence Heal
LikeLiked by 1 person
The rule of Law agreed to by the States is the Constitution. There are several other Imperial Acts attached that came with it.
The Senate was inquorate.
The original constitution was enacted by a real living Queen.
The adversarial thought patterns of the detractors are in conflict with reality. Is the Queen referred to in the Australia Act real or not? Can we see her? Or is it a piece of paper?
So to the detractors please settle this by requesting the Queen of Australia give an address to the Parliament and/or the Nation that she presides or rules over to give clarity regarding Senator Culleton’s removal..
One has to really consider the mental capacity of a person that believes a piece of paper is capable of being a Queen.
Vale, Prince Leonard of Hutt River Province. He will be sadly missed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Methinks the bullshit comes from you sir
LikeLike
Congratulations Senator Culleton, love your work … now get back in there and shake them up by the bootstraps. On your side 100%
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Greg can you tell us the date of the referendum held to validate the Australia Act? Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Supreme Court UK (former Privy Council) disagrees with you. Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Greg we are not going to trade constitutional blows through this column. Suffice to say the real Queen, not the fictitious Queen of Australia initialled the Australia Act bill on the top corner, meaning she has noted the contents. She did not give it Royal Assent. The problem you have is the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900. It remains in force in the UK and Australia and no amount of wayward bills enacted by our unlawful parliament can repeal it.Ed
LikeLike
I also note that he claims to have advice from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, not the Privy Council.
The UK Supreme Court has authority ONLY in the UK and has not, does not and never will have jurisdiction over Australia or any other colony or ex colony.
It doesn’t even have jurisdiction in Scotland.
“The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.”
https://www.supremecourt.uk
LikeLike
The Australia Act was also passed by the UK parliament and came into effect at the same moment that it did in Australia.
The Privy Council may not adjudicate on matters of Australian law as it is forbidden to fo so by UK law.
LikeLike
1. The article itself demonstrates that the headline is completely false.
2. Section 47 of Part IV of the Constitution of Australia states: “Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.”
3. As the High Court explained to Culleton, the Parliament HAS “otherwise provided”.
4. The Parliament decided to send all such matters for consideration by the High Court.
LikeLike
Regardless of all that, the High Court was sitting as the court of disputed returns.
‘Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.’
The High Courts role as the Court of Disputed Returns was established in the Australian Electoral Act 1902.
The Parliament, having otherwise provided in accordance with the constitution, the High Court, not the houses, is the arbiter, end of story.
It ruled that he was ineligible to stand as a candidate therefore he was not elected and never a Senator.
LikeLike
Queen Elizabeth PERSONALLY gave assent to the Australia Acts both here and in the UK.
Now you are just sprouting bullshit.
LikeLike
The unlawful Australia Act just got wiped out. It has never received Royal Assent from Queen Elizabeth Second or was it put to referendum. See you in the senate.Ed
LikeLike
It was the unlawful Australia Act [1986], the Act that the Parliamentarians authorized without a referendum that usurped the rule of law to remove the Privy Council.
Prince Leonard of Hutt River Province beat them at their own game and these scum have hounded him ever since. After that, little Bob the grub used his position to create the Australia Act to block any further acts to escape the Junta that we endure.
We tried for years in the early 1990’s to obtain info about this Act. Public meetings were held and no-one would admit to it. Labor was questioned about it [Keith Wright], perhaps he let the cat out and paid dearly.
We are now reaping the results of the secret society of the Fabians[1973 – 2019] and before that when they moved to destabilize our money [1966] by changing from the Gold backed Pound to the Dollar.
Just as well they have built big correctional centers.
They can let the inmates out that have not harmed anyone and that will leave room for the real crimms the Judiciary and the Pollies.
Kangaroo Court [Shane Dowling] has a good starting list of candidates.
LikeLike
Since the Australia Acts came into force, any opinions of the Privy Council are completely irrelevant.
It also erred on this point, understandable since the UK does not have a written constitution.
Australia DOES have a written constitution however and it takes precedence over parliamentary procedure and the constitution states that the final arbiter of the constitution is the High Court.
The constitution states quite clearly that a citizen of a foreign country may not sit in parliament. When the aforementioned Australia Acts came into force, by cutting all legislative and legal ties to the UK, it became a foreign country.
So, sorry mate, but you are going nowhere and ceetainly not into the Senate.
LikeLike
While ever the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia Act UK 1900 is in force the Supreme Court of the UK has ultimate jurisdiction. Has this UK Act been repealed?Ed
LikeLike
The Privy Council hasn’t had any relevance or jurisdiction in Australia since the 1980’s.
LikeLike