The following speech pretty well sums up my feelings on the republic Issue. I'm not a monarchist but, in it's present form, the proposed republic would have had us jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. I am also very fond of our flag which I know would go under a republic and that's a good enough reason for me not to want to change anything without a resolution to keep it.
Document begins:-
ADDRESS BY THE HON. BILL HAYDEN A.C. IN SUPPORT OF THE "NO" CASE FOR THE FORTHCOMING REFERENDUM CONCERNING AUSTRALIA AS A REPUBLIC, AT THE N.S.W. STATE PARLIAMENT HOUSE, SYDNEY 18 AUGUST 1999
Bill Hayden @ Bryden Q 1999
MEDIA EMBARGO UNTIL 1PM. 18.8.99.)
Speech begins:-
I welcomed the invitation to appear here today to express my views on the forthcoming referendum concerning Australia as a republic.
In accepting the invitation I made it clear that I would appear as a person independent of any affiliation; as indeed was the basis of my participation in last year's constitutional convention, at Canberra, on this topic.
I am not a monarchist, nor am I a republican.
As I have frequently explained in the past, I am quite happy with present arrangements which work tolerably well, for I fear that some from of half-baked intervention into our constitutional processes; and that is exactly how I would describe the present proposals - half-baked - could end up leaving us with a constitutional mess that would hamper the good order and smooth operation of our federal political system for generations to come.
This, in itself, is enough justification to send this jerry built construction back to its drafters with a resounding NO.
Yes; most might want a republic; but NO, this is not good enough for most of Australia, not even half good enough.
There is a far better way of negotiating our way through the complex maze. I will come back to that on another occasion.
In the meantime, there is an important feature of opinion polling on this issue. There is a general pattern of plus or minus, a little, either side of fifty per cent, in support of the republic. It seems there is a direct correlation between the plus factor and publicity of the latest unfortunate shenanigans of one of the royals.
When the public are asked what sort of republic they prefer, if there is to be one, the support for direct election, that is, for their right of democratic participation, shoots to as high as eighty per cent!
In other words, a lot of people like those here today, who don't wish for change, immediately make it clear that if there is to be change it is to a system in which they directly participate.
I'm one of those people. And there is no inconsistency between the two responses. Neither for me nor any of those people responding to a polling question that if there is to be a republic then we want one which includes us directly in the choice of the President.
We aren't disenfranchised just because our first preference is knocked out. The zealots from ARM, which can only claim a bit over twenty per cent of the electorate, don't thus receive an exclusive mandate, at the expense of the majority of us, to determine the nature of the republic which will effect all of us.
That is precisely why, at the constitutional convention, at Canberra in February of last year, I moved the only resolution which provided for direct election of a President; should Australia determine it wished to become a republic. (C.C. Transcript proceedings 12.2.98 PP.568 - 570)
There are several models, which function quite successfully in different countries for direct election of a President, whose role is very much ceremonial and not at all executive. [My earlier reservations on this point being no longer sustainable on available evidence]. I don't recommend any of them, because that is not appropriate at this stage, but I do note, proud of my Irish Heritage, that if the Paddys can get it right in Ireland, and be publicly approbated by many of the ARM, then I believe there is a better than passable chance that we can too; if we decide we want to become a republic.
I note The Australian has taken to exhorting us to support what is being offered on the basis that it is all that is on offer. Therefore it is better to salvage something than go away with nothing from the mess we have before us. We may not get a chance at republican change again, the paper sententiously warns.
And The Australian wags a stern school masterish finger at us; 'Do your duty. Don't think. We've done it for you'. Seems to be the underlying theme. All of the media, it appears, are on the same ego trip.
The media: The self-appointed, and very self-important, brains of the nation. My God! That's rather frightening. Another convincing reason to rush in and vote NO without further pause.
There is a high pitch to this reminiscent of the loud, huckstering of certain T.V. advertising.
You know the sort of urging I mean - "A once only, never to be repeated sale. Hurry in and get your bargain now before it's all over".
Then the solicitous salesman, with the public's best interests at heart says, "Well, the shoes may be two sizes too small but you'll never get something like this again - not at these prices!"
And then, the hapless customer says, "But the pain of forcing myself into such small shoes will cripple me."
The salesman ripostes, "Forget the pain. Just think how good you're going to look to others in this fashionable gear!"
And, frankly, that's on a par with what is being offered to us with this half-baked referendum proposal for a republic.
You don't buy something just because it's on sale if it doesn't fit your needs. Not sensibly you don't.
Then sensibly, surely, you are much less likely to buy a constitutional change which could leave our constitutional processes crippled; at the least, a change that could leave them in the hands of a self-approbating political elite, people unlike most ordinary Australians, who smugly presume that they know better than ordinary Australians who should best represent ordinary Australians.
I'll have more to say on these points shortly.
A variation of the media hard-sell of 'buy now, it will be too late later', is the urging that this momentous change has to be in place for the Millennium.
It's said as if God is impatiently waiting for the change. Divine expectations require that we do our duty now, not later when a better, a genuinely workable and truly democratic model could be offered.
Why ever the Millennium? Does the year 2000 make a republic more valid than the year 2005, or whatever?
Isn't the dominant imperative that we get it right from the start? Surely no one disagrees with that simple common sense proposition - and if that is so, then the year the deed is done is irrelevant.
The correctness of the deed is what is important.
The sooner the deed is done the better. I agree. But the critical caveat is, the sooner the deed is done properly the better, and not until it can be done properly should it even be attempted.
What is being offered is not 'The Republic We Have To Have'.
The form of republic the people want - if they decide they want a republic - is the republic we should have, and it is not being offered with the gimcrack model before us. Nor can it be offered with any variant of that model.
Parenthetically, I note, what is being offered is reasonably faithful to the principles laid down by a majority - a simple one, not an absolute one - at last year's constitutional convention; one of the most politically factionalised, and rigidly factionalised at that, conferences I have ever been to.
And it was like that from day one, never altering in its dominant theme of elitism; determined to lock the public out of fundamental democratic processes.
ARM, predicable, locked the public out completely, in the end, delivering a model that left the process almost completely in the hands of the politicians, like the model before the nation now.
The mis-described direct election faction would only trust the public's wisdom to choose after a vetting committee, comprised of citizens worthier than ordinary Australians, that is, comprised of people like themselves, for whom their high self-regard was abundantly evident, had run a worthiness check over presidential nominees.
The unstated underlying assumption with both of these factions seemed to be, 'If I can't be President then it's got to be someone we can all respect and admire,.......someone like me'.
There was only one genuinely direct election recommendation brought before the convention, only one authentically democratic proposition which respected the people's right to choose whom they wanted as their first public representative.
I know because I moved it, and I am unlikely to forget the extraordinary response of delegates to that so called people's convention.
The proposal that Australians should determine their own destiny, rather than have a small, elite committee take over the process completely or at least critically regulate it, was gingerly pushed and prodded like an infectious dead cat lying on the carriage way, and then unceremoniously kicked aside.
It only got six votes!
Out of the total of one hundred and fifty seven people's delegates, only six of confidence in the common sense and trustworthiness of the ordinary members of the Australian public could be mustered!
And this was the much boosted People's Convention. These were the highly self-regarding people's delegates. Only six of them trusted and respected the common sense of their fellow citizens.
It is this same elitism which permeates practically every clause of the proposal now being offered to the Australian public.
The implication is clear; the politicians have to allow us to vote on the issue of change. The constitution demands that. That is just a grudging concession to fact, to the constitution.
But the process which it is sought to foist on us, once in place, would allow no space for the public to ever determine who their first public figure would be. That will be bottled up in the hands of the politicians. It's bad enough, for them, that they have to let us determine who they will be at regular elections; that's the pity of it all, it can't be avoided, but they don't intend to slip up on this one.
What opinion polling establishes is that, if we are going to have a republic, then most of the public want a genuinely democratic process for selecting their President.
One in which they can participate as self-respecting equals as befits a genuine democracy.
What the model before us does is to deny that basic right; to relegate the public to the role of onlookers; to place the processes firmly in the hands of the politicians.
Now key people promoting the 'yes' case for this referendum claim it is a virtue to eliminate members of political parties from standing for election as President.
They then find no incongruity in proposing a system that emphatically puts the selection of the president in the hands of party politicians.
And the Prime Minister has out maneuvered them
Under his proposal, a candidate who knows he/she is going to get the nod tomorrow to become President, can resign from the legislature and the particular political party of which she/he is a member, today, they'll be eligible for appointment once the cock crows mid-night.
It's all undiluted malarkey.
Let's look at some of the traps explicitly embedded in the Prime Minister's proposal.
The composition of the proposed 'Presidential Nominations Committee' reeks with prospective opportunities for political wheeling, dealing and fixing.
Sixteen members of the committee will be directly chosen from parliamentarians [ 8 from the Commonwealth Legislature and 8 from other legislatures ].
Now, here's where the wheeling, dealing and fixing can come in; there are to be sixteen members chosen from the community who are appointed by the Prime Minister.
Imagine the opportunities for evening up the imbalance in numbers the earlier process just might cause for a government.
But surely the Prime Minister, you say to yourself, would consult with the opposition before undertaking such a solemn duty as appointing community representatives to this committee to choose our Head of State, our first citizen?
I'd hope so. But I can't be confident; certainly not for all times; can you? I can't even be confident for the medium distance future, anymore than you can!
If it can be said by a person of high authority in public office that question time, one of the hinges on which our open, democratic system swings, is a privilege, not a right, and can, accordingly, be withdrawn, what is sacred about an assumed duty to bi-partisanly consult? Indeed, there is no such standing practice, unlike question time.
You might murmur to yourself, Ah! But the President's nomination requires seconding by the leader of the opposition and two-thirds support of the joint houses of Parliament. Surely a device sufficiently safeguarding against any attempts at nobbling the committee as anyone could want?
Well, perhaps; I would hope so. And I would have absolute confidence in Kim Beazley's honorable behaviour at all times, as I have in the honorable conduct at all times of John Howard. But there will be a long time after John Howard and Kim Beazley, a time of which we can know nothing about political leadership. And this republican model being foisted on to us is not for disposal after next year's fashionable republican gown comes onto the market. In the way of our constitution, what goes into it stays there for a very long time.
And I do recall the extraordinary capacity of politicians to do deals across the chamber (but wisely, not in the chamber) in circumstances most of you would think unlikely.
I recall when John Grey Gorton was Prime Minister of Australia. Specifically, I remember 1971, vividly, as Gorton was being hoisted into his political tumbrel by certain of his liberal party colleagues.
He was being confronted with unpleasant options; resign as P.M. or certain members of his own party would move a resolution against him in the House of Representatives which would end his Prime Ministership.
The latter could only happen with Labor's complicity in the final vote, of course.
As the events of that period, which crushed Gorton, moved to their climax there was regular telephone contact between the conspirators and Gough Whitlam's office.
I know! I was there when some of these calls were coming in and received one of them. Handling it over to Whitlam. The messages were updating us on what was happening and what was proposed so that the opposition would support a suitable resolution against Gorton.
Subsequently, Malcom Fraser reputedly had no trouble making contact with a senior Labor M.P. and obtaining a run down on the likelihood of the Labor Party tipping out its leader.
Politics is a poisonous pond, you say? Maybe; but I'm cautious about moralising. Some ruthless tactics are used in the corporate sector at times, not to mention academe (see Andrew Reimer's Brownstone Gothic for an insight into scholarly ruthlessness).
It doesn't take much imagination to figure out the sort of dealing which could take place between an opposition and a government, with these proposed provisions available, and with glittering spoils which can be divvied up between both sides.
This is not even to explore, in other circumstances, the opportunity for implacable obstruction to any Prime Ministerial nominee by the opposition.
Or perhaps, again, in some instance, that's the way it might initially seem and then the impossible differences are apparently resolved, conceivably even swiftly.
Some would heave a sigh of relief and conclude that good reason had triumphed.
Others, of more suspicious bent of mind, might pose the question; was there a back room deal? If so, of what nature and what was the trade off? Maybe they would be wrong to conclude this; but, and this is a very big and very important but, the system could be brought into public mistrust, even contempt, in this way.
Now some will conclude that I dwell too much on the worst that is in the make up of humankind. Not really, for by nature I'm rather optimistic about people. But and large but this time, I have had enough experience in public life to know that if you create the opportunity for the worst to come from people's conduct, some will, at sometime or times, grasp the opportunity to behave in that way because of the advantages derived from doing so.
The miscreants would never concede that it was self-interested motive - the most seductive of which is to hold power over others - which directed them. Not at all. It is always for the national good, to protect the people's interests, to defend our freedoms.
That's why pluralistic, democratic societies like ours are keen on multiple checks and balances and are wary of the imperfectabilities of ordinary mortals holding power over the public; especially frail mortals tempted by the availability of too much authority.
That's why the direct participation of the people in the process of choosing a president is the cleanest and most convincing way to go, if we want to become a republic. That way there are over 12m. checks and balances, enrolled Commonwealth voters, all working in a clearly transparent electoral process, shoring up public confidence in the process.
Now, Malcolm Turnbull says this is the populist option.
The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary [3rd. Ed. 1997] defines 'populist' as -
"A member or adherent of a political party seeking support mainly from the ordinary people - a person who holds, or who is concerned with, the views of ordinary people......"
That is precisely the point. Malcolm's mob are running an elitist line. In this case, an elitist process which will be locked up and controlled by the politicians, that's the very opposite of the people's choice, of what is popularly preferred.
By substituting 'populist' for 'popular' he, of course, means to have the idiomatic pejorative do some hatchet work for him, conjuring up unsavoury subliminal images.
On those grounds we could dub him as leader of the unpopulist push, for what he is propounding is as publicly agreeable as a basket full of sun stressed mullet in a public place.
It's also quite implicitly disrespectful and dismissive of the good common sense of ordinary Australians.
No, that's not good enough. No, we don't want it because it's messy, flawed and it doesn't trust us, it doesn't protect us. Us, the people. That's why we'll vote NO! It's our democracy, not the politician's private property.
If I could mention a few concluding points.
*NB Because of time constraints commentary from "If I could mention a few concluding points ". at p11 will not be delivered orally in this address but is available for attribution.
The proposed change allows for the immediate sacking of the President by the Prime Minister. The sacking of a Governor-General would be more difficult than that. And what tame cat Presidents we'd have under this provision.
The dismissal requires simple majority support for the sacking in the House of Representatives. For that read, almost certainly, automatic confirmation by the Government in the House that its leader meant what he did. Some safeguard for the proprieties in public office.
You will note, the senate is immobilised for these purposes. Democracy and our democratic institutions being hamstrung again.
Worse; should the house fail to endorse the Prime Minister's dismissal of the President, that failure "does not operate to reinstate the President who was removed". That's half-cocked, totally ruthless, frontier justice if ever I've seen it.
A Governor-General has to decide. Sometimes he has had to decide to confront the wrath of his political advisers because of an issue of proper conduct in public office has had to be upheld. Several have done this. Who would dare do that under these arrangements? It could be instantly negated, it could be suicidal for the President's public office, it could provoke community upheaval. Who, of any public stature and self-respect, would want to occupy such a gutted role?
Imagine this power in the hands of Queensland Premier Bjelke-Peterson, in 1987 when his ministers sought to rid the government of him and he, in turn, went out to see the Governor, Sir Walter Campbell, to sack him. Campbell sent him packing, very properly telling him to get majority support of his cabinet. That was the beginning of a very quick end for Bjelke-Peterson, but if, as under this proposal, he went to the Government House, taking the precaution of having a signed note in his pocket sacking Campbell, what would have happened? That, instead, would have been a terminal experience for Wally Campbell's public life. I don't think many of you would care to have the circumstances in which that sort of development could arise.
Then, what about the states! Queensland could remain under a State Monarchical Constitution but be regulated by a National Republican Constitution. That could happen if, for instance, Queenslanders voted for the former, and the State Government honoured their preferences. While the latter was forced on them by constitutional formulas, largely through the electoral dominance of Sydney and Melbourne, in spite of Queensland having resoundingly voted against the republican proposal.
And image this ludicrous situation. As a Queenslander the Queen would be welcome to my home state as Queen of that part of me which would owe fealty to her while the President would arrive with a claim of loyal duty from me in her/his role as President of another part of me. Which part do I give to whom and who has precedent. It can all be sorted out, if necessary, I expect, [but I don't know in what way]. But how silly we'll look to the rest of the world. Australia; land of strange, contradictory patch-work constitutional arrangements.
After all, Looking silly to the rest of the world because we are not a republic galvanises the ARM. In fact, inflames some of their commentary. Why doesn't this ridiculous prospect cause at least a murmur of concern from them!
All of this comes together as a remarkable formula for national discord and, in particular, rural alienation on a far larger visible level than One Nation has been able to demonstrate.
The preamble - it's dreadful. It's passive and dull, boring and uninspiring and when it sought, originally, to put so much value into "mateship", it was, frankly, awkwardly sentimental and moronic. Brian dead may not have been unfair.
In particular, as it's to be non-justiciable, moreover, it could have been revved up a bit to stop us from going to sleep.
Where's our equivalent to the French (Declaration of Rights)-
all men are born, and remain free, and equal in rights; social distinctions can only be found on common utility, (art.1)
the end of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man; these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. (art.11)
And there is the inspiration from the U.S. (Declaration of Independence) -
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed......
And what is Australia crash hot on when it comes to inspiration from its proposed constitutional preamble? Not liberty, equality, fraternity, not of political power being founded in the people and accountable to them.
No; Not any of these animating, enduring, passions for which ordinary people, throughout history, from many lands, have been prepared to go, literally, to the barricades for, to fight for, to suffer vile incarceration, including exile to distant, harsh strange lands, to be even slaughtered for, in order to resist tyranny, cruel injustice, unmeritorious privilege. They did that in the hope that one day ordinary men and women would be free; free to breathe the exciting atmosphere of liberty. As we breathe it in Australia.
Our national heritage is the non-fungible but tangible riches which their suffering and sacrifices gifted to their future generations. That's where our social, political, cultural bonding comes from. And we should enshrine it proudly and inspiringly in the preamble of our constitution, as the hope of all humankind, rather than the colourless, formless weak junket pudding that's being dolloped out here.
It's a wonder the drafters of this proposal just didn't propose a simple amendment, thus; "For Preamble, read Dorothy Mackellar's 'I Love A Sunburnt Country'".
I cringe!
On these grounds alone this proposal deserves to be repudiated, but, equally, the two proposals are such a flawed, unbalanced, undemocratic offering that they command a NO vote from any self-respecting, democratic electorate.
Half-baked is not good enough; not for our constitution. This half-baked proposition is about political power. In a democracy the Jefferson Principle is; from the people, by the people, for the people.
This proposal honours only one of those points; from the people; if it succeeds in taking power from the people, from then on they're pushed out of the boat. They can watch, and thresh about and complain, but they're out of the boat because power will be consolidated in the hands of the politicians.
The public say they want their President to be the people's choice. The politicians say; but you don't know how to handle this. Trust us. That's when your blood runs cold.
A rose is a rose by any other name. So's a toadstool. That's what we'd get with this proposal. A bunch of unpleasant toadstools. And no amount of dressing it up can disguise how ugly and unacceptable it is.
NO; it won't do. It's not even half good enough. Go away Mr. Prime Minister and try again. Come back with a model that allows for the people's choice. It is - believe it or not - their democracy!
End of speech
The following is an abridged version of a report compiled by Mr John Harris to explain why our Australian Constitution must be safeguarded at all costs.
CONSTITUTIONS AND PEOPLE POWER (Abridged)
How to Overcome Worldwide Tyranny
Introduction
This report discusses the nature of Constututions, the relative merits
of Constitutions, and what is required to make them work effectively, in
order to preserve the freedoms of the people.
It explains why no
Constitution so far has ever protected its people from tyranny, and it
notes some of the leaked thoughts of the people directly and primarily
responsible for the abject failure of every Constitution on Earth.
It explains how one highly innovative and well designed Constitution
escaped the attention of the de facto World Controllers at a time when
their attention was otherwise engaged in momentous and horrendous
plans.
This Constitution, the Australian Constitution, either by chance
or else by act of God (you decide which), provides a legal mechanism
for overthrowing the entire pack of criminal de facto World Controllers,
if the people of the world will, even if only temporarily, become well
informed and abandon their current apathy.
Using the American Constitution as an example, it explains why the World
Controllers desire republics, and it demonstrates terminal flaws in that
Constitution.
It also suggests the only lawful way in which American
patriots can successfully oppose the tyranny being generated in their
country by the World Controllers.
It points out that no single country can, by itself, even hope to
succeed in opposing the de facto World Controllers and in restoring its
traditional freedoms. In this instance there can be no doubt that it
must be a matter of "One for all, and all for one" as immortalised in
"The Three Musketeers".
The Nature of Constitutions
Constitutions are merely sets of words, either oral or written, which a
group of people have agreed will be used to regulate the activities of
their group. A Constitution can exist for a club, a nation, or a group
of nations.
In itself, a Constitution is inanimate and powerless, and, like the
British Constitution, it may not even exist in written form. A
Constitution only acquires power with the consent and knowledgeable
backing of the people whose activities it is designed to regulate. If
the people concerned either do not understand or else are apathetic
about the set of rules which are supposed to regulate the government of
their group, then they automatically leave themselves vulnerable to
tyranny from their appointed executive officers.
This situation exists
today, in every nation of Earth, even in Britain, Canada and Australia,
but especially in the USA (see numerous Patriot sites on internet) and
also Medinat Israel (see web site JewsNotZionists).
Even a poor Constitution can provide a good living/working environment
for a group, if the group are perpetually vigilant and assertive about
ensuring their freedoms. The best Constitution that it is possible to
design, will provide no protection at all for its people, if they are
ill-informed or apathetic.
But the human species has consistently demonstrated that they, as a
group, are either unwilling, or else are congenitally unable to maintain
themselves in a constant state of arousal and informed vigilance. The
majority are normally too busy going about their own personal business
to worry about loftier legal matters. Only a minority can usually rouse
themselves to informed action, and only then when they see that things
are going seriously wrong.
Under such circumstances, an effective
Constitution MUST make provision for the limitations of the human
species, and MUST provide a set of checks and balances and appropriate
severe penalties, which encourage those with Executive roles to obey the
rules, and permit the more vigilant minority of group members to
powerfully call to account those executives and administrators who
deviate from their Constitutionally defined duties.
The Best Present Example of a Constitution
The Australian Constitution probably rates as the best yet produced by
the human species, from the viewpoint of freedom for the people rather
than freedom for the Executive. It was produced over a period of about
twenty years (1800-1900) by people who were keenly aware of the failings
of all existing Constitutions including that of Britain and the USA.
They formulated it in the form of a perpetual written commercial
contract between the people of Australia and a nominally immortal entity
reputably skilled in the art of providing good government (see
appendix). Other such contracts had been made by other nations, but not
as written commercial contracts.
They also explicitly stated the only means by which that commercial
contract might be lawfully altered and retained the right of approval of
all Constitutional changes for the people themselves. They provided a
useful set of checks and balances, which they presumably expected would
be inadequate to stop the future tyranny that they had every cause to
anticipate on the basis of past history. In anticipation of this
eventuality, they did something totally new. They specified those
conditions which would disbar a politician from lawfully holding his
Parliamentary seat. They then made direct provision for mandatory,
massive and bankrupting financial penalties to be extracted from elected
politicians by any and every concerned person in the world, in the event
of Australian politicians causing breaches of the contract between the
people and their lawfully appointed chief executive officer.
Through long-standing commercial law they also made indirect but
mandatory bankrupting financial penalties to be extracted by any and
every concerned person from the lawful master of those politicians, if
that lawful chief executive officer or unlawful usurper of Executive
authority did not keep his/her servants under control.
Though they had little choice in the matter, their selection of Victoria
as the chief Contractor for supplying our good Government, provided many
other tangible benefits that are not explicitly stated in the Written
Constitution. There was no need to repeat them in the contract, because
they automatically follow from that selection of a Chief Executive
Officer.
These benefits are the British entrenched law that the British
monarchs have guaranteed for all time, to those who are subject to them.
The fact that we have contracted with the Queen of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland and "her heirs and successors according to
law", means that the legal requirements of the practical constitution go
much further than what was superficially approved by the people of
Australia in the referendum of 1900.
The Sovereign of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is legally bound to abide by
certain other previous perpetual and thus never ending contracts made by
her predecessors with her people.
These include the Magna Carta of
1215, the Magna Carta of 1225 (in as much as it does not contradict the
Magna Carta of 1215), and the Bill of Rights 1688 (in as much as it does
not contradict the Magna Carta of 1215). The Magna Carta itself claims
to be merely a codification of pre-existing British Common Law.
It should be noted that clause 61 of the Magna Carta of 1215 clearly
states that "The King will not directly or indirectly do anything
whereby these concessions may be revoked or diminished". Since the
Sovereign's consent is required to make or change any laws, the Magna
Carta of 1215 is still binding on the British Sovereign today,
regardless of whatever nonsense the present highly suspect legal
profession may chose to teach. Furthermore, the Magna Carta of 1215
authorises the people subject to the British Monarchy to even go so far
as to make war on the Sovereign in his own realm while ever he fails to
uphold the terms of the Magna Carta.
It can rightly be argued from this fact, that the rebellion of the
American people against the British Throne and its corrupt advisors, was
legally authorised by the Magna Carta, and will continue to be so
authorised until a lawful incumbent of the British Throne restores the
traditional rights of his/her people, and cleanses his/her
administration of all wrongdoers.
Viewed in this light, the Magna Carta
provides the American people with their sole legal right to take arms
against their present totally corrupt government, a right that is
certainly not granted them under their own terminally flawed Republican
Constitution.
Chapter 1 of the later Magna Carta of 1225 states that "We have granted
also, and given to all free men of our realm, for us and our heirs for
ever, these liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and
their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever.
Under these circumstances, any nation which contracts with a rightful
heir or a lawful successor to the Sovereign of Great Britain and
Ireland, also automatically acquires the full protection of the Magna
Carta of 1215 plus the protection of the Magna Carta of 1225, British
Common Law and the Bill of Rights 1688, in so far as they are consistent
with the Magna Carta of 1215.
A de facto "High Court of Australia" was unconstitutionally created by
the "Judiciary Bill 1903" as a retirement home for three persons, two of
whom were involved in three separate (treasonous) breaches of the
Australian Constitution, even before there had been an elected Federal
Parliament, and in numerous subsequent breaches. The third of this
illicit trio, Chief Justice Samuel Griffith, stated in 1905 : "The
contention that a law of the Commonwealth is invalid because it is not
in conformity with Magna Carta is not for serious refutation." He lied
and dishonoured his de facto office.
Section 45 of the still valid Magna Carta of 1215 states that:
"The King will not appoint any judges, constables, sherrifs or baliffs,
except such as know the law of the land and are willing to keep it
well."
Since the legal doctrine has existed since at least the time of the
Stuarts to the effect that "the sovereign can do no wrong", then any
appointees of the Crown who break the law of MAGNA CARTA or the
Australian Constitution, ( which the sovereign is bound to keep into
perpetuity), MUST BE DEEMED to be unlawfully holding their positions and
are thus unable to legally act as agents of the Crown.
This certainly
applies to judges and politicians who merely act as agents of the Crown.
Despite these powerful innovations, that well designed contract that we
made with Victoria was broken three times, before there was even an
elected parliament. There was a complete silence on this matter by the
news media, politicians, and the legal fraternity, thus indicating, in
some measure at least, the extent of the treasonous conspiracy
involved. The number of separate breaches since there was an elected
Australian parliament have multiplied as the Biblical stars in the sky
and grains of sand on the beaches. As I stated previously, even the
best Constitution it is possible to design, will provide no protection
at all for its people, if they are ill-informed and/or apathetic.
A considerable effort has been made, from the very beginning, by a very
powerful and ruthless, but quite small group of people, to ensure that
the Australian people are ill informed and apathetic about our
Constitution. This same effort has been made by the same group of
people, to subvert the lawful government of every nation on Earth. The
present republic of the United States of America, the recently deceased
Soviet Union, the deceased League of Nations, the European Economic
Community and the United Nations are all merely a part of their
globe-spanning handiwork.
While there are obvious ways to greatly improve our Constitution, even
in its present form it is quite able to provide a lawful way to regain
our lost freedoms, and indeed the lost freedom of every nation, provided
that the people, if only for a short time, will become well-informed,
and discontinue their present state of apathy.
I believe that no other
Constitution on Earth has such potential power as does the Australian
Constitution.
A religious type might chose to believe that this is
related to the fact that our Australian Constitution was formally placed
under the protection of Almighty God at its very outset.
Report ends.
And if you think we've got problems, check out the precarious position of New Zealand and Canada
The three main themes of the Convention were: Whether Australia should become a republic;
which republic model should be put to the electorate against the status quo: and in what time
frame and under what circumstances might any change be considered.
In 2001 we will celebrate 100 years of a working Constitution which made Australia a Nation
in 1901. No one wants to let the republicans divide us at a time we should celebrate our
nation's unity.
Our Constitution has existed for nearly 100 years and is the heart of Australia. There is no
reason to change the system which has served this nation so well. We have a peaceful,
friendly democratic and stable society which has seen millions of people from, all over the
world choose Australia as their home. we should not risk changing something that works so
well.
To become a republic requires at least 70 changes to the Constitution, it would mean a new
system of government and a new Constitution, because two-thirds would have been
changed in theory, practice and spirit.
Australia is one Nation - Not only would we have a Federal Republic, under the republicans
we would also have a president in every state. A total of seven republics. There are 116
republics in the world - which one do the republicans have in mind for us?
We already have an Australian Head of State who is above politics, the Governor-General,
who is nominated by the Prime Minister of the day. In each State we have a Premier-
nominated Governor. Under a Republic, these may be elected politicians. This could lead to
unstable governments as we may see power struggles between a political President and a
political Prime Minister, both federally and at State levels.
A Republic will not improve our trade, economy, unemployment, poverty levels or our
national debt. Australians in all opinion polls have never rated the republic in the top ten
issues they want governments to do something about.
Australia is the sixth oldest continuous democracy in the world and is linked through its
history as part of the International community. Our history has made us what we are - free,
tolerant and diverse. The Queen as Head of the Commonwealth is leader of 1.6 billion
people in 53 countries spread over every continent in the world. As separately Queen of
Canada, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Australia, relies only on advice from each
country in that country's affairs. We share in common history and our heritage, but operate
absolutely independently both legally and constitutionally.
A Republic will mean existing symbols will have to change, wiping out our heritage.
Republicans promote a new Constitution, a new flag, a new National Anthem, and getting rid
of our Government Houses.
A Republic will cost financially and emotionally. The Turnbull Committee estimated in 1994
a popularly elected President would cost $45 million minimum each election. They didn't
estimate the cost in the six States, planning for the Presidential palace, the costs of the
presidential entourage, travel.......This money could be better spent on health, education, the
environment and reducing the National debt.
We are already an independent sovereign nation, both legally and practically. The
republicans base their arguments on the need to be independent and have an Australian as
Head of State. We already have both now - so why change?
Six Questions the Republicans Won't Answer
Q1:What would happen to the Australian flag under a republican system?
A: Republicans claim this is a separate issue. But the republican leadership is overwhelmingly in favour of scrapping the flag for a "better" design.
Malcolm Turnbull, Janet Holms a Court, Nick Greiner, Phillip Adams…….have all been directors of Ausflag, campaigning to change the flag. The Australian Republican Movement sponsored an Ausflag exhibition called "Flagging The Republic". When Prime Minister, the republican Paul Keating vowed to change the flag.
Q2: Why do multinational media corporations (such as Murdock's News Ltd.) and millionaire international bankers (like Malcolm Turnbull of Goldman Sachs) campaign for the republic?
A: They claim it will make Australia "independent". How? Australia has been legally and constitutionally independent since the beginning of the century.
It isn't the Queen who undermined our independence. It is the politicians who signed United Nations conventions, ran up the foreign debt and committed Australia to the "global market'……under pressure from international bankers and multinational corporations.
Q3: How would "an Australian citizen as Head of State" improve our system of government?
A: It wouldn't. And the fact is, we have never had a "Head of State". This republican term doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. We have a constitution monarchy, with a Queen of Australia, represented by an Australian Governor-General. It works!
Q4:Why should we give federal politicians the power to choose a President, as proposed?
A: Why indeed? This process would be dominated by big political parties, who corrupt almost everything they touch. There is every chance we would end up with a politician as Head of State! Politicians have too much power as it is.
Q5: At present, the Oath of Loyalty is sworn to the Queen. Under a republic, to whom would the Armed Forces and the Police swear allegiance?
A: To a President chosen by the politicians? Loyalty to the Crown, which is above politics, could be replaced by loyalty to a politically-appointed President.
Q6:Under a republic, what authority would guarantee the sanctity of title deeds to land (freehold or leasehold), which is currently guaranteed by the Crown?
A: There isn't any answer....only more questions such as :
If the Crown is destroyed would Crown Land revert to Native Title? Will the Commonwealth grab control of land title from the States? Could A politically-appointed President guarantee land title?
|
