SENATOR "SILLY BILLS" BROWN IS AT IT AGAIN

Senator Brown - one of the Senators for Tasmania - is at it again with the introduction of another "Silly Bill" into the Senate.

Senator Brown wants the Australian Government to spend $8.9 million of taxpayer's money to hold a plebiscite as to whether Australia should become a republic. The question to be submitted to the Australian electors is "Do you support Australia becoming a republic?". In 1999, the Australian people voted overwhelmingly not to support the introduction of an Australian republic. Senator Brown is deluded in thinking that a tick to his proposal would provide certainty to the introduction of a republic if the people support the proposed 2010 plebiscite! The trouble for Brown is that the counting of votes in a simple plebiscite is vastly different from that required by a full blown referendum to approve any changes to the constitution. How embarrassing for Brown and his tribe if the people supported a republic as a result of his plebiscite but when it comes to the crunch at a referendum, and while the overall numbers remain essentially the same, the constitutional requirement could see a different result altogether.

Historically, it would need more than 54% to a get a referendum up even then that is no guarantee. The 1977 referendum on Simultaneous Elections gained 66.22% but failed to cross the line - only three of the six states (NSW, VIC & SA) recorded a YES vote. It appears that Brown really doesn't understand the road he is running down.

But there is another more sinister side to his crazy proposal.

The problematic section 15(1) of both the Australia Acts allows the Commonwealth Parliament - with the consent of all the State Parliaments - to amend or repeal the Statute of Westminster and both the Australia Acts.

This power could be abused sometime in the future in respect of Section 8 of the Statute of Westminster given the High Court decision in Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen's Association Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340 has put at rest any doubts as to the validity of the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth).   In the unanimous opinion of the court, s 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution should be given a broad interpretation reflecting its 'national purpose of a fundamental kind', which is that of 'plugging gaps which might otherwise exist in the overall plenitude of the legislative powers exercisable by the Commonwealth and State parliaments under the Constitution'.

What this means is that if Brown's republic plebiscite got up is that with the power from the Australia Acts, the Commonwealth Parliament, by Acts supported by the state Parliaments, can amend the Statute of Westminster that precludes it from amending the Commonwealth Constitution, the covering clauses or the preamble'.

In other words, the combined Parliaments could, alone, alter the Australian Constitution without holding a referendum. The same gang could also alter the Australia Acts to allow the states to remove the requirement that the Governor of a State represent the Queen!

Don't be fooled by Brown or any of his elected public servant colleagues on this issue. The republic is not about having an Australian as Head of State; it is all about giving more powers to the elected public servants!

Another question that should be asked of the Brown/Rudd Socialist Coalition is "What about the millions of Australian citizens who hold dual nationality?". Will they be eligible to be Head of State?

Mr Brown, you really haven't thought this one through have you?

Attached is a copy of Brown's Silly Bill and an extract of his remarks made in the Second Reading of the Senate Hansard. The date of the introduction of Brown's "Silly Bill" into the Senate will not be lost on anyone.

Read the Bill or Read the Hansard Extract

LETTERS PATENT RELATING TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL CHANGE

On 21 August 2008, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, the Queen of Australia, approved of new Letters Patent relating to the Office of Governor-General. These Letters Patent revoke the Letters Patent dated 21 August 1984, as amended.

The changes generally feminise that document which makes sense given that the incumbent is now a woman.

That said, Kevin-O-Carbon - whose signature appears on the document by Her Majesty's Command - forgot to tell the Australian people. This is a quasi constitutional document and should have been given wide dissemination to the Australian people.

Kevin-O-Carbon's silent approach on constitutional issues is of major concern. While Kevin-O-Carbon is busy taxing us more for carbon emissions with one hand he will be busy altering the constitution with the other and without telling us!

Download the revised Letters Patent.

SUBMISSION TO THE AUSTRALIA 2020 SUMMIT

On 2 March 1986, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II - in her capacity as Queen of Australia - signed a proclamation which brought both the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth) and Australia Act 1986 (United Kingdom) into operation in both the United Kingdom and throughout Australia on 3 March 1986.

While there has been some argument about the actual date of Australia’s complete sovereignty, there can be no doubt that it has been fully achieved since 3 March 1986 when Queen Elizabeth II signed the proclamation bringing both the Australia Acts into operation.

While this would be seen by most as the final step in achieving independence it overlooks the fact that no referendum was undertaken to ensure that the Australian people have exclusive and total supremacy over their collective constitutional documents.

The problematic section 15(1) of both the Australia Acts allows the Commonwealth Parliament - with the consent of all the State Parliaments - to amend or repeal the Statute of Westminster and both the Australia Acts.

This power could be abused sometime in the future in respect of Section 8 of the Statute of Westminster given the High Court decision in Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen's Association Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340 has put at rest any doubts as to the validity of the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth).   In the unanimous opinion of the court, s 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution should be given a broad interpretation reflecting its 'national purpose of a fundamental kind', which is that of 'plugging gaps which might otherwise exist in the overall plenitude of the legislative powers exercisable by the Commonwealth and State parliaments under the Constitution'.

If the 2020 Summit Governance Group does nothing else other than to recommend that Section 15(1) be repealed by referendum to ensure that the Statute of Westminster and both the Australia Acts can only be amended or repealed in accordance with Section 15(3) of both of the Australia Acts then it will have achieved a lot.

Such action will then ensure total sovereignty of the people over their constitutional documents.

In doing so, it will also prove to the Australian people that all our elected public servants remain subservient to the Australian community at all times as well as ensuring that our democracy is one of the best - if not the best - in the world.

No other constitutional change should be contemplated or undertaken until this proposal has been implemented by the Australian people!

The following quote from the late Richard McGarvie's book "Democracy; choosing Australia's republic" provides a profound summary: 'With the power from the Australia Acts, the Commonwealth Parliament, by Acts supported by the state Parliaments, can amend the Statute of Westminster that precludes it from amending the Commonwealth Constitution, the covering clauses or the preamble'.

Richard McGarvie was a former Supreme Court Judge and Governor of Victoria.

For further information on this subject read Is Our Constitution Safe?

A PRIME MINISTER RUDD COULD REWRITE THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION WITHOUT A REFERENDUM

Much has been made of possible wall-to-wall Labor governments across Australia should the Labor Party win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives at the forthcoming Federal election. Some fear the possible increase in the GST which is currently set at 10%. Others have additional fears in respect of the Australian Constitution being legitimately changed without the holding of a referendum.

While any political mix of Federal and State Parliaments could accomplish the same thing, it is more likely for that to happen if all of the Federal and State Parliaments are controlled by a socialist conglomerate; the socialists are far more aggressive than the conservatives when making changes without consultation with the people!

But there is another aspect to this use of power.

It is also possible for an Act of the federal parliament to be passed at the request or with the concurrence of the six state parliaments to amend both the Australia Act 1986 (UK) and the Australia Act 1986 (Cwlth) to change Section 7 of both of those Acts relating to the powers and functions of Her Majesty and Governors in respect of the States so that the States could become republics.

No federal referendum would be required for this process; indeed, in 1999 all of the six states did exactly that but because the commencement date of those six Acts was tied to the result of the republic referendum and because the republic referendum failed, the six state Acts had no effect. Since then, some of those state Acts have been repealed. There is nothing in law that would prevent this from happening again even if it were not tied to the outcome of a future federal republic referendum. In other words, we could find ourselves one morning with six state republics without the people ever being consulted!

But a more alarming aspect and potential time bomb is that, and by a similar process, an Act of the federal parliament can be passed at the request or with the concurrence of the six state parliaments to amend the Statute of Westminster 1931.

When the Statute of Westminster 1931 was being drafted additional provisions were inserted in the Statute to safeguard the position of the states of Australia.

In Section 8 of the Statute, it was provided that 'nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution or the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia otherwise than in accordance with the law existing before the commencement of this Act'.

In 1999, there was an attempt to amend Section 8 of the Statute of Westminster to provide that "Nothing in this section prevents the amendment of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act by omitting the Preamble or by repealing sections 2 to 8. This would have left the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia containing only Clause 1 (Short Title) and Clause 9 (The Constitution of the Commonwealth).

Because there was no unanimity between the six States the proposal was abandoned.

Section 128 of the Constitution states that 'This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner'. That said, one might presume that the procedure for change detailed in Section 128 of the Constitution was the only way that the Constitution could be amended. Additionally, some would claim that while Section 15(1) of The Australia Acts could be used to allow amendment of the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia, the same provision would not allow for amendment of the Constitution itself!

Now, the Australia Act 1986 (Cwlth) gained its authority from Section 51 (xxxviii) of the Constitution.

This power lets the Commonwealth, in co-operation with the States, do anything for Australia which only the United Kingdom could do at the time of federation.

At the time of Federation, the United Kingdom could have amended the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth (which includes the Constitution) because that Act was an Act of the United Kingdom.

A High Court judgement summarises the effect of s 51 (xxxviii) of the Constitution as it was interpreted in Port MacDonnell Professional Fishermen's Assn Inc v South Australia (1989) 168 CLR 340 thus: 'The effect of s 51 (xxxviii) is to empower the Parliament 'to make laws with respect to the local exercise of any legislative power which, before federation, could not be exercised by the legislatures of the former Australian colonies'. It represents an actual enhancement of the legislative powers of the States because 'it confers, by implication, power upon the Parliament of a State to participate in the legislative process which the paragraph requires, namely request (or concurrence) by a State Parliament and enactment by the Commonwealth Parliament'. There is a potential enhancement of State legislative powers because the Parliaments of the States are the potential recipients of legislative power under a law made pursuant to the paragraph. Any room for an inhibition against giving to the grant in s 51 (xxxviii) its full scope and effect by reason of what was once the status of the Commonwealth itself within the British Empire no longer applies'.

The Australia Act 1986 (UK) is a British statute. It is a fundamental or higher law which prevails over ordinary laws and it cannot be altered by any one Australian legislature acting unilaterally. Its force in Australia now must rest on the authority of the Australian legislatures empowered to alter the Act under S15 of the Act.

This Act has its source in the Statute of Westminster (section 4 of the Statute was then available) and was passed in case the Australia Act 1986 (Cwlth) was found to be invalid.

Because the Australia Act 1986 (UK) is a higher law and because the High Court of Australia has found that 'any room for an inhibition against giving to the grant in s 51 (xxxviii) its full scope and effect by reason of what was once the status of the Commonwealth itself within the British Empire no longer applies' it would seem self-evident that the collective force of the Federal and State Parliaments could amend the Australian Constitution without holding a referendum.

The following quote from the late Richard McGarvie's book "Democracy; choosing Australia's republic" provides a profound summary: 'With the power from the Australia Acts, the Commonwealth Parliament, by Acts supported by the state Parliaments, can amend the Statute of Westminster that precludes it from amending the Commonwealth Constitution, the covering clauses or the preamble'.

Richard McGarvie was a former Supreme Court Judge and Governor of Victoria.

For further information on this subject read Is Our Constitution Safe?

SHOULD AUSTRALIA INTRODUCE A FORMAL CITIZENSHIP TEST?

Unequivocally! 

Only a formal test can accurately measure the understanding of prospective citizens of a country that they intend to become a citizen of.

The attached PDF was a submission to the Citizenship Task Force, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs: Submission to Citizenship Task Force

SENATOR BROWN REMAINS SILENT ON THE NSW GREENS DECISION TO VOTE TO CHANGE THE NSW CONSTITUTION WITHOUT A REFERENDUM

NSW Legislative Council member Lee Rhiannon has described the Australian peoples' record on producing affirmative referendum results as being "poor". "Astute" would have been a better word to describe our referendum results as Australians will not support changes that will give elected public servants more powers and/or do not provide tangible benefits to the people themselves!

Ms Rhiannon has also indicated that the Greens support a two-stage process to establish a republic. That includes an initial non-binding plebiscite followed by a consultative process to determine the model for the republic and the method by which the Head of State should be elected.

That said, Ms Rhiannon doesn't believe in any consultative process before changing the NSW Constitution; she believes that most people in NSW would support the change to the Oath of Allegiance despite the fact that she has no tangible and overwhelming evidence to arrive at that conclusion.

Obviously, Ms Rhiannon does not subscribe to Professor Cherryl Saunders' sentiment that "Fundamental rules about the acquisition of power cannot confidently be left to those who presently hold power or who have regular prospects of doing so"!

But not all people think the same way as does Ms Rhiannon.

The Federal Independent Member for New England, Mr Tony Windsor, has now written to the Prime Minister (see attached PDF) asking for his consideration in respect of initiating the process to require States to conduct referendums in relation to such proposals.

Meanwhile, Senator Brown - who leads the Greens - remains abnormally silent on this issue!

Tony Windsor.pdf

MEN MAYBE FROM MARS AND WOMEN MAYBE FROM VENUS BUT IS DR MEREDITH BURGMANN FROM PLANET EARTH?

In recent correspondence (see details at bottom of page), one of New South Wales' senior elected public servants, Dr Meredith Burgmann, who holds down the important position of President of the NSW Legislative Council asserts that members of the NSW Parliament currently pledge loyalty to the English Queen!

Such an assertion is simply fallacious. Some points of law follow:

• Since the enactment of the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, Elizabeth II has been "Queen of Australia". The Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 confirmed this arrangement; all this revision to the Royal Styles and Titles did was to delete reference to the "United Kingdom" and "Defender of the Faith".

• Additionally, the 1988 Constitutional Commission, partly authored by the Hon E G Whitlam AC QC, found inter alia that: "The disappearance of the British Empire has therefore meant that the Queen is now sovereign of a number of separate countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, amongst others. As the Queen of Australia she holds an entirely distinct and different position from that which she holds as Queen of the United Kingdom or Canada. The separation of these 'Crowns' is underlined by the comments of Gibbs CJ in "Pochi v Macphee" that 'The Allegiance which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia'.

• In 1999, the High Court, in the Sue V Hill case, confirmed that the Queen of Australia does not act as a foreign Queen. One of the main arguments that was raised by Heather Hill was that the Queen of Australia is the same person as the Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Therefore swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia was the same as swearing allegiance to the Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. This argument was rejected by the Court on the basis that whilst physically it is the same person (Queen Elizabeth II) they are "independent and distinct" legal personalities. This notion is known as the divisibility of the Crown which Justice Gaudron found to be "implicit in the Constitution."


Clearly, members of the NSW Parliament currently swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen of Australia and not to the English Queen as asserted by Dr Burgmann. It is disappointing that Dr Burgmann, who is highly academically qualified and who holds a position of high importance and responsibility, does not fully understand the entire bandwidth of Australia's constitutional nuances, arrangements and law.

--------Copy of Letter from Dr Burgmann is detailed below:


THE HON. DR MEREDITH BURGMANN PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL


Nick Hobson DFC AFC
PO Box A2027
Sydney South NSW 1235
21st April 2005


Dear Mr Hobson


RE: CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (PLEGE OF LOYALTY) BILL 2004


Your arguments are very forceful but I believe that democracy is protected by the fact that our votes are open and transparent. People can vote against us if they believe that we should still be pledging loyalty to the English Queen.


Thank you for your correspondence.


Yours sincerely,


Meredith Burgmann
Parliament House
Macquarie Street
Sydney NSW 2000

Australia