We Mandate the Government

(Not the other way around)

A MANDATE is an instruction from a higher power (the people) to a lower power (the government). It’s not a plea or request, its an order.

The people are the highest authority. That is why we elect politicians (public servants).

According to Jowitts Dictionary of English Law the word “MANDATE” has a power of direction to whom it is served upon. 

According to the Butterworths Australian Legal Dictionary a Mandatory rule is a rule compelling or demanding a course of action, which conveys an obligatory command leaving no room for option or discretion. A Mandatory Rule is generally expressed by the use of “shall” rather than “may”. It is contrasted with a directive rule.

If over 50% of people in the South Coast Marine Park affected area send in their signed MANDATE, there is no negotiation. The government must follow orders.

The High Court in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd & New South Wales v Commonwealth 1992 HCA45 September 1992 at 37. clearly established that the sovereign power resides in the people and is exercised on their behalf by their Parliamentary representatives.

“. The point is that the representatives who are members of Parliament and Ministers of State are not only chosen by the people but exercise their legislative and executive powers as representatives of the people. And in the exercise of those powers the representatives of necessity are accountable to the people for what they do and have a responsibility to take account of the views of the people on whose behalf they act. Freedom of communication as an indispensable element in representative government”

In Levy v Victoria the High Court said “The constitutional implication of freedom of communication”

It is not open to doubt[104] that the Constitution protects the freedom of “the people of the Commonwealth” (“the members of the Australian community”) to communicate with each other concerning those political and government matters that are relevant to the system of representative and responsible government provided for by the Constitution[105]. By a necessary implication drawn from ss 7, 24, 64 and supporting sections, the Constitution strikes down laws burdening freedom of communication on these matters[106]. The implication is necessary because, without it, people of different backgrounds or with different perspectives or information could be legally prevented from exchanging views[107] on matters relevant to choosing their representatives at federal elections and on matters relating to the performance of federal Ministers. Consequently, no Commonwealth or State law can validly impair the freedom of communication that the Constitution protects and, as the decision in Lange demonstrates, the common law cannot be at odds with the Constitution. The freedom protected by the Constitution is not, however, a freedom to communicate. It is a freedom from laws that effectively prevent the members of the Australian community from communicating with each other about political and government matters relevant to the system of representative and responsible government provided for by the Constitution. Unlike the Constitution of the United States, our Constitution does not create rights of communication. It gives immunity from the operation of laws that inhibit a right or privilege to communicate political and government matters. But, as Lange shows, that right or privilege must exist under the general law.

For the purpose of the Constitution, freedom of communication is not limited to verbal utterances. Signs, symbols, gestures and images are perceived by all and used by many to communicate information, ideas and opinions. Indeed, in an appropriate context any form of expressive conduct is capable of communicating a political or government message to those who witness it.”

3. Rights of the “ sovereign people : A third foundation for the plaintiff’s attack on the validity of reg 5 was an appeal to the sovereignty of the people of Victoria. It was argued that there was an ultimate common law restraint upon the exercise of power by the Parliament of Victoria in so far as it purported to enact or authorise a law diminishing the capacity of the people to enjoy their democratic rights or to express and agitate their views in a manner appropriate to a society where the people are the ultimate sovereign. The notion that the ultimate foundation for constitutional norms is the common law is not a new one[143]. However, it remains controversial[144]. With the passage of time since federation in Australia and changing notions of Australian nationhood, the perception that the Australian Constitution is binding because of its imperial provenance has given way (at least since the Australia Acts 1986) to an often expressed opinion that the people of Australia are the ultimate repository of sovereignty[145]. That view is not without conceptual and historical difficulties[146]. However, relying upon these opinions, the plaintiff submitted that no Australian Parliament, federal or State could deprive the “ sovereign people ” of their fundamental democratic rights. These, it was suggested, included freedom of political communication essential to the very operation of a Parliament representative of the electors. To the extent that the Victorian Parliament attempted to make, or authorise, a law which usurped the people’s rights or interfered in their exercise, such a Parliament went beyond its lawful powers”.

Categories: mandate