Why are we being deceived?
Whatever the reason, it is not just an Australian sickness. What is happening could not happen in Australia alone. What is happening here is happening in all English-speaking nations and apparently in all European nations as well.
In the introduction to a 1986 booklet called The Queen Betrayed and the Nation Sold into Captivity we find this comment:
A Bill is now being pushed through Parliament by the British Government without the consent of the people which, if passed, will transfer major powers over legislation and social and economic policy in the U.K. from the British electorate and Parliament to Brussels and Strasbourg. This transfer of power, and loss of British sovereignty, goes far beyond anything contemplated in the Common Market referendum of 1975. It reneges on assurances given by the Government that remaining in the Common Market would involve no further loss of self-government - more serious still, it causes H. M. The Queen to break further her Coronation Oath.
Or this from the Phyllis Schlafly Report U.S.A.:
Thank you for inviting me to testify on the Four International Human Rights Treaties. I oppose Senate ratification of these treaties for the following reasons:
1) The treaties do not give Americans any rights whatsoever. They do not add a minuscule of benefit to the marvelous human rights proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence, guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and extended by our federal and state laws.
2) The treaties imperil or restrict existing rights of Americans by using treaty-law:
a) to restrict or reduce U.S. constitutional rights,
b) to change the U.S. domestic federal or state laws,
c) to upset the balance of power within our unique system of federalism.
3) The treaties provide no tangible benefit to people in other lands and, even if they did, that would not justify a sacrifice of U.S. rights or upsetting the American system of checks and balances.
The above two items are mentioned here to help us understand from the beginning that what is happening in Australia is the result of secretive international plotting. Wealthy internationalists worked for many years to erect and control an international financial system. This achieved, they now work to complete and establish, direct political control of nations. Present political parties (without informing the people and in contempt of constitutional obligations) are contracting our national sovereignty to an international 'world government' concept.
The Australia Act
First a short reminder of the proper working of our legal constitution. Here are quotes from A.A. Chresby's book Your Will Be Done . Chresby, research analyst in constitutional law and formerly Federal Member for Griffith in the House of Representatives, states:
"THE SOLE LEGAL FUNCTION of a Member of Parliament IS TO FREELY ADVISE the Queen in the government of the country, according to the clearly expressed will of the people, ... [EA]
"... On the other hand, the permanent legal government or Monarchy IS WHOLLY AND SOLELY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE, ...
The submission of elected members to party discipline is in contempt of electorate authority and may be considered an act of conspiracy against the nation. The above quotations are basic to this argument and reflect the common judgment of constitutional authorities. Should there now appear lawyers who dispute this, then their opinion is irrelevant. New interpretations are no more than an attempt to deny the people their heritage.
The aborted move to force on Australians a Bill of Rights without a public referendum and full public understanding, is part of the sad story of the planned corruption of our constitutional heritage. A similar example is The Australia Card which, in use, would also extend despotic control over the people.
As to The Australia Act itself, ALL main political parties, both State and Commonwealth, spent more than five years preparing and passed, (quietly, with media discrimination) what is known as Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1985. This resulted in the Australia Act being assented to on December 4th 1985 and proclamation of the Australia Act 1986 being signed by Her Majesty the Queen, in Australia, on Sunday March 2nd to bring it into force on March 3rd 1986.
The signing ceremony was the first and possibly the only hint that most Australians have had that a very important Act has been passed into law. But even then, there was no hint we are being cut off from our British Christian heritage and constitutional right to democratic government.
Although the Australia Act 1986 states specifically that the Commonwealth Constitution is not affected (it applies to the States) the balance of constitutional power is very definitely changed and by that the Constitution is changed. The act most certainly undermines the conventions, protections and meanings of our Constitution.
Legal interpretation of the Australia Act is obviously open to argument but the intent of the Act was clearly stated in Parliament itself, and explanations made in Parliament are considered as evidence when it comes to interpreting an Act. The General Outline in the Explanatory Memorandum relating to the Australia Act (House of Representatives) begins:
The purpose of the Australia Bill 1986 and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill 1985 is to sever the remaining constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom.
Constitutional lawyers may argue and confuse us (and themselves) about the meaning of the words used in the Act but, in the end, the stated purpose must prevail. Despite what we were told officially about the Act being of no consequence we find, within days of the Act being Assented to, a Constitutional Commission being formed to advise on changes to the Australian Constitution.
Also, within a few months of signing, constitutional lawyers begin coming into agreement that the Act does open the way to alteration of the Australian Constitution without public consent.
It appears inevitable that Australia must have a new Constitution because if, as stated above, all constitutional links with the United Kingdom are now broken, or if, as seems likely, the United Kingdom becomes part of the new European Economic Community with laws overruling British Common Law, then, in either event, the foundations of our present constitution disintegrate.
HOWEVER, on the other hand, it is clear that the enactments which have brought us to this sorry state of affairs are illegal (both here and in the U.K.) because they have bypassed the democratic and constitutional authority of the people.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us (as I have all along seriously insisted) living under a government whose operation is illegitimate and whose actions are TREASONABLE.
An enactment that is without expressed public WILL or knowledge or option, is clearly not an enactment giving effect to the will of the people and, when such an enactment has the effect of totally dismissing all the lawful safeguards (by both its own force and the deceit of its enactment), then the deliberate nature of the sell-out is beyond doubt.
There are many anomalies and contradictions related to the Australia Act and the publicly stated reasons for the Act. For example, the heading to Section 5 of the Act states: Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of Westminster not affected but Section 12, headed: Amendment to the Statute of Westminster, reads as follows:
Sections 4, 9, (2) and (3) and 10 (2) of the Statute of Westminster 1931, in so far as they are part of the law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, are hereby repealed.
Obviously some legalistic double-talk is prepared to explain such contradictions, but equally obvious is that resort to such trickery merely adds to the evidence of deception.
The people now find it almost impossible to exercise any authority; this was never more clearly evident than in the example of public appeals against the Australia Act based on Queensland legislation produced precisely to protect the people from just such legislation as the Australia Act.
On the 7th of December 1977 Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen presented to the Queensland Parliament The Constitution Act Amendment Bill. Extracts from Hansard:
My Government believes that writing these existing provisions of constitutional law and practice into the constitution will safeguard the existing system of parliamentary Government in Queensland but it believes that it is necessary to entrench this safeguard against the possibility of changes being brought about by Parliament contrary to the wishes of the electorate.
Few people in Queensland today want a republic - especially the socialist republic which so many Labor Party people appear to want. We do not want a Government of this State at any time taking advantage of the people to produce a republic by stealth. If the people want it, then they should be able to clearly indicate so at a referendum. Only if the people of Queensland vote for a change will it be possible for Australia as a whole to become a republic, because you cannot change the monarchy in one part of Australia unless you change it in the whole.
To entrench the present system, the Bill provides that none of its clauses can be altered by Parliament unless the Bill is first presented to the people by way of referendum as prescribed in this Bill.
The requirement of entrenchment (Section 53) is also itself entrenched so that the guarantee cannot be undone, such as has been done in other parts of the Commonwealth of Nations where a republican form of government has been brought about contrary to the constitution.
As I have said, a great deal of thought has gone into this Bill. What has been done in other parts of the British Commonwealth has been taken into account and we have considered all of the implications of entrenchment and the way in which the entrenchment can be brought about constitutionally. My Government is confident that this is a measure which will meet with the whole-hearted approval of the people of Queensland and will attract a great deal of interest among the parliamentarians and people of other States of Australia and overseas. I commend the Bill to the House. Hansard - as reproduced in Wake Up, Australia November 1986.
What Did Section 53 Actually Say?
Requirement for Referendum
53. Certain measures to be supported by referendum.
(1) A Bill that expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor or that expressly or impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of this Act, namely - section 1,2,2A,11A,11B,14; and this section 53, shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless it has first been approved by the electors in accordance with this section and a Bill so assented to consequent upon its presentation in contravention of this subsection shall be of no effect as an Act.
(2) On a day not sooner than two months after the passage through the Legislative Assembly of a Bill of a kind referred to in subsection (1) the question for the approval or otherwise of the Bill shall be submitted to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the Legislative Assembly according to the provisions of the 'Elections Act 1915-1973' and of any Act amending the same or of any Act in substitution therefor.
Such day shall be appointed by the Governor in Council by Order in Council.
(3) When the Bill is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament of Queensland prescribes.
(4) If a majority of the electors voting approve the Bill, it shall be presented to the Governor for reservation thereof for the signification of the Queen's pleasure.
(5) Any person entitled to vote at a general election of members of the Legislative Assembly is entitled to bring proceedings in the Supreme Court for a declaration injunction or other remedy to enforce the provisions of this section either before or after a Bill of a kind referred to in subsection (1) is presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen. Wake Up, Australia.
Only a few years later we find enacted in all States, including Queensland, the Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1985. This act requested the British Parliament to change the constitutions of all States. This was done without any referendum or general publicity. As a result two Queenslanders decided to bring legal proceedings as section (5) above advised. Both were dismissed. The first, a case against the Minister for Justice and Attorney General was lost because the Judge found:
. . . that while the applicant contended that the Act of 1985, at least impliedly, provides for alteration in the office of Governor and that it expressly affects ss 11A and 11B and 14 of the Constitution ... the Act does not of its own force, purport to affect any provision of the Constitution or the office of Governor or indeed to work any change in the law of Queensland, although it is true that it seeks to have the Parliament at Westminster and the Parliament of the Commonwealth make the relevant alterations.
Who changed the meaning of the words expressly or impliedly, section (1)? Or, shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless it has first been approved by the electors?
In the second attempt the case was brought against the Governor and fared even worse, the court ruling that the Governor was not the appropriate person to be held accountable.
The clear intent of the legislation was to prevent Acts such as the Australia Act being used to change the Queensland Constitution without a referendum, but equally obvious is that if the powers behind the scenes want something, legality, in our present situation, becomes almost irrelevant.
If the parliament is seen as THE AUTHORITY then almost any document can be interpreted to suit. But the Parliament is not constitutionally the authority, nor is the Court. In Common Law it is the PEOPLE who are the authority and in case of dispute of constitutional meaning, they, by means of referendum, are the only authority that can properly give a final answer. The political parties have (not surprisingly) never seen fit to legislate a procedure whereby the people may express their authority.
In the absence of any practical mechanism whereby the people can express their authority, and in absence of education to keep the public aware of the overall nature of their responsibility, then the parliament can claim to represent the people and do just as it likes.
So long as the people can be by-passed, then, no matter how clearly the law is expressed, lawyers can always read in a loophole to suit those who manipulate governments. The judgment that the Australia Act (Request) Acts (as they were called prior to the 'requested' Australia Act being introduced) did not constitute an act altering the Queensland Constitution but only a request to another parliament for alteration, is certainly avoiding the practical and intended meaning of the legislation.
The Australia Act deception, supported by all represented parties in both State and Federal parliaments, makes a mockery of our democratic system and makes irrelevant any legal interpretation of our Constitution.
If the base of legal government can be abused in this way then a precedent is created which, if accepted by the public, allows other unconstitutional power grabs. The significance is that:
(1) it makes parliament illegitimate in terms of our legal Constitution;
(2) it denies Australia the safeguards and privileges of the British parliamentary heritage and, because of agreements signed with the United Nations, places us under United Nations control;
(3) it makes way for a new Constitution;
(4) it makes way for Australia to become a socialist puppet-republic.
Despite the silence of the mass media, and the claims of political party politicians that the Australia Act is of no political consequence, we now have a Constitutional Commission to advise on changes to the Constitution. Also comments as below from constitutional lawyers.
Reported in TIME magazine (10/11/1986):
Melbourne University Constitutional Lawyer Bernard O'Brien says the recent Australia Acts, which severed the country's remaining constitutional links with Britain, also removed the need for referendums, an idealistic but invariably frustrating requirement that not only a majority of the people endorse any proposed change but also a majority in most states. Since 1901, referendums have been a barrier to substantive constitutional reform.
O'Brien believes the recent unannounced change may be no accident. He quotes Adam Smith, the 18th century English economist, who said: "People in the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public." . . .
But according to O'Brien, who says he has tested his theory on other constitutional lawyers, the Australia Acts do more than appears on the surface. He says they "appear to introduce a procedure whereby the Commonwealth constitution can be altered by the Federal parliament at the request or with the consent of the state parliaments without having recourse to people voting at a referendum." Even more controversially, he also says it is possible the agreement of the states may not be necessary.
Independently of O'Brien's work, another Melbourne University constitutional lawyer, Greg Craven, has studied a 1985 High Court judgment and concluded that the logical implication of the position adopted by three of the judges is that a simple legislative amendment would be all that would be needed to bring the constitution under the power of the Commonwealth parliament.
Others also bring up valid points.
But why should we expect any of the political parties that conspired to bring in the Australia Act to now act to prevent the implementation of its provisions? There must surely be a lesson form having seen what may happen to preventive legislation when actually put to the test.
Are the arguments of our 'learned friends' relevant? Does it not seem that if the law can say that legislation which does not in itself alter the constitution but only asks another authority to do so, is legitimate, and if severing the constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom does not require popular referendum, or is also legitimate because it does not actually alter a word of the Australian Constitution, then why should parliament not write a new Constitution? After all they are not altering the present Constitution (now without force) but merely consigning it to the rubbish bin.
If they now do so, who can we (the people) appeal to?
Irrespective of the legal base for the above comments, it cannot be denied that if the Constitution can be changed without the knowledge or understanding of the people at one time it can be done in the same way at another. What is legal or illegal makes little difference so long as the people remain ignorant.
Letters received from readers who have written to parliamentarians show that parliamentarians still maintain the constitution is unaffected; example from Ian Sinclair, M.P.:
The proposition that this legislation will alter the Constitutional balance of powers between the Commonwealth and State Governments is certainly not correct.
The legislation was the result of lengthy consultations between the Commonwealth and State Governments, and the British Government. The States had the opportunity to protest if there were any change in either their relationship with the Monarchy or with the Commonwealth . .
It is quite normal for politicians to evade or ignore important points and to give an opinion rather than to present any evidence or logic. Well the facts are that a Queensland Judge said the Act WAS a request for illegal changes and several constitutional lawyers say that it HAS resulted in important changes, and the legislators themselves say that the purpose WAS to sever the remaining constitutional links and what we are complaining about is the conspiracy between the political parties. Is that all totally beyond the ken of a mere party politician?
Clearly, as we do not select our representative, it is natural that 'our' representatives represent those who do manipulate the choice.
There is one thing we Australians have to do at the next election .. get representation in OUR parliament. The opportunity is certainly there, two strongly contested by-elections in NSW (early 1987) resulted in a marked swing from the major parties. A newspaper report (Sunday Telegraph) said that more than 30% of voters in each seat ignored the two main parties in a growing disillusionment. Significantly, it was also reported that many of these did not even give a preference to a major party. We may be sure that if 30% voted against major parties then a majority in the electorate is disillusioned - most electors simply do not know how to handle the situation.
A politician is not legally empowered to represent the will of a political party, nor to represent his own desires, nor to represent any foreign power of any kind. A politician is, by rights, totally and solely a servant of those who elect him and must act for them only. He may not represent pressure groups or international gangsters. For an elected M.P. to disregard this duty and, in conspiracy with other elected members to serve alien interests, would seem, in common convention, to constitute treason. All represented parties must be counted equally guilty in this.
Unless we understand our rights and privileges as set out by the legal Australian Constitution, it is not so easy to see the full significance of secret manipulation.
Section 128 of the Australian Constitution says:
... the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors.
And Part 1, Section 1, of the Constitution states:
The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives.
If a 'tricky-dicky' use of words to mislead the people and bypass the Constitution is not deceit, what is?
Many Australians are aware that our Constitution demands a democratic majority approve of changes but, if we do not know the Constitution and the historic ties that protect and give it meaning, we are easily deceived. Our Constitution has three basic elements and if any two of these unilaterally declare the third powerless, then we no longer have a legally constituted government because the deprived element does not have the right to accept emasculation nor do they altogether have any legal right to change the Parliamentary power balance without the consent of the electorate and in accord with the clear intent of the historic purpose of government directed by the will of the people.
So while all States must agree to constitutional change, the actual Constitution makes clear that the people are the authority. It can NEVER be acceptable that constitutional change can be made without the understanding and desire of the people. The parliamentary representative is properly the representative of the electorate and may not make such a decision on his own behalf or on behalf of some alien influence.
Furthermore, any re-arrangement of State powers which alter relationships between States and Federal is, effectively, an alteration of Federal power. Even were each State government legally free to act without a referendum, to do so as a means of re-arranging constitutional power without the expressed will of the electorate is not within the spirit, meaning or content of the Constitution.
What we are concerned with here is not just simple law; what we are concerned about is our rightful heritage which gives us, the people, control of the political process. We have (what amounts to) a mutual defense pact with the Crown to ensure that we maintain that control. However written, our forefathers died for and achieved for us the right of 'government of the people by the people'. Deliberate by-passing of this heritage, in fact or in spirit, is betrayal.
Only when one understands the importance of these changes does one begin to appreciate the significance of the secrecy and tricky legality with which these Acts and other changes have been introduced by political party connivance.
Once we understand how these changes unite the Bill of Rights, the Australia Act 1986, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, the proposed Australia card, and agreements signed with the United Nations (which are based on socialist concepts), then we begin to appreciate the enormity of what is so deceitfully imposed.
The above are designed to impose on honest Australians (as a first installment) the following reforms:
These are only the first step! What comes next?
It's much later than you think. The powers of the Spanish Inquisition are being re-created in an unelected body called the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. In Inquisition days such people claimed to work for God; now they mask their activities under the name of Human Rights. What's in a name? d&ta03.htm
.../Back to Contents