Most Australians may now be asking themselves, what impact will a constitutional change have on our lives and how will the proposed preamble affect our constitution. However, few of us may consider the profound consequences these changes may have on our environment.
While Graham Strachan from the Australian Institute of Business Philosophy has noted 49 excellent reasons to be wary of our government, the purpose of this article is not to endorse our current constitution, but rather reflect upon the shortcomings of both models and systems in question.(1)
Clearly, our current constitution has failed to prevent immoral, treasonous and lying politicians dominating in Canberra at present. It has also failed to cater adequately for the voice of ordinary Australians through parliamentary representation. However, a vote for the undeniably flawed Republican proposal would be a jump from the frying pan into the fire. Moreover, this equally applies to the proposed preamble. Anyone requiring advice, vote NO and NO!
Let us first consider the proposed preamble. Unlike the current preamble, the proposed preamble makes no mention of the States. Moreover, the proposed preamble would be tacked onto the constitution in addition to the current preamble in a most unprofessional manner.(2) Is the absence of States in the proposed preamble, an indication of a move to centralise power in Canberra, where in reality power would actually propagate from the institutions of global governance? Considering our government’s willingness to sign numerous detrimental international treaties with the United Nations, a centralisation of power would surely be a worrying prospect.
Our government asserts the proposed preamble would not affect the interpretation of Australian laws. However, legal experts including the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Harry Gibbs argue that regardless of the addition of a clause barring its use, the Preamble may have considerable legal force.(3) Considering our governments' legal bungles, it would be a safe bet to assume the preamble may carry legal weight. Remember when the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating told us Native Title would be extinguished on Pastoral Leases? Moreover, few if any Australians would have dreamt their support for the 1967 referendum would lead to the Mabo and Wik outcomes. Now consider an extract from the proposed preamble:
"honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country"
Does not "their lands" imply ownership and how will this land be environmentally managed with "their ancient and continuing cultures"?
For starters, it is misleading to assert the Aborigines were the nation’s first people. The Aborigines did not live in a nation. They were comprised of numerous independent tribes. Moreover, as Australia's leading rock art expert, Grahame Walsh identifies, the Bradshaw culture existed on this continent long before the Aborigines. Even the Aborigines local to the area, refer to the Bradshaw paintings as "rubbish paintings, before our time".(4) This seems to be a contentious issue for some academics and the politically correct. This is evident when we hear John Clegg, an archaeologist from the University of Sydney saying: "What scares me about this Bradshaw claim is that Aboriginal people are having their Aboriginality stolen from them yet again. You know: the [idea that the] paintings are too good - therefore somebody else did them... If there was indeed another race, that raises the question then of who are the real Aboriginals."(5) Surely the truth is not so frightening. It is not as if anyone is having a go at the Aborigines. White people know and do not mind in the slightest admitting their ancestors passed through cultural highs and lows. Why should this be different for Aborigines? However, what else can we expect from bicameral minds.
As with many contentious issues like Aboriginality and global warming, the mainstream media leaves most of the public in the dark. According to those who know him, Grahame Walsh has had what little academic funding and support he once received cut off entirely. He has been consigned to live in personal poverty, while the Kimberley Land Council has attempted to quarantine the region from any serious study of the Bradshaws. Moreover, the Bradshaw Foundation’s founder John Robinson cut out one and one-half chapters of Walsh's book without even informing him. It is also interesting to note, a board member of Robinson's Bradshaw Foundation, David Coulson, is the president of the Trust for African Rock Art (TARA), which is controlled by Sir Laurens van den Post, an intimate of the Royal Family and a top figure in World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) circles.(6)
The WWF openly admit: "Together with IUCN and UNEP, in Caring for the Earth WWF acknowledged the need for recognition "of the aboriginal rights of indigenous peoples to their lands and resources ... and to participate effectively in decisions affecting their lands and resources"".(7)
Prince Philip together with ex-Nazi and long standing Bilderberg Chairman, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands founded the WWF back in 1961.(8) Since its inception, the WWF has pushed Aboriginal "land rights" and pseudoscientific environmental theories such as global warming under the guise of caring for the environment and indigenous people.(9)
Since 1985, WWF has invested over US$1,165 million in more than 11,000 projects in 130 countries.(10) Now, this is constitutionally relevant given that Prince Philip under our Monarchy has headed the WWF since its inception in 1961.(11) Moreover, Pat Dodson's delight at Queen Elizabeth's reception in Buckingham Palace this October, no doubt identifies the Monarchy's push for "land rights". The Buckingham Palace visit was part of a two-week trip for the delegation to engage in dialogue as part of the "unfinished business" of "reconciliation".(12) Most Australians would surely be interested to know what this "unfinished business" really means. Given the elite's influence and their resistance to listen to common sense, the average Aboriginal is likely to be left to live in squaller in the face of the multi billion dollar Aboriginal industry.
The WWF has expressed its conviction that "indigenous peoples are crucial actors in conservation."(13) Given that the 85% of this country is subject to Native Title claims, it appears environmental management of Australia may revert largely back to Stone Age technology.(14) While Stone Age technologies may prove to be environmentally satisfactory, modern science has no doubt a superior capability to manage our nation's environment while enhancing our standard of living. Many environmentalists would debate this by pointing to some of our environmental failures. However, this is not the fault of science, but rather greed, ignorance or negligence.
Many elites promoting Native Title romanticise over the lifestyle of the noble savage. If such a culture of battling the elements, surviving droughts and waring tribes were so desirable, one may wonder why these people adopt a lifestyle in comfortable air conditioned offices. Surely having a hot shower each day in clean running water is an anathema to being at one with Mother Nature!
These elites proclaim it is wrong to judge traditional Aboriginal culture with Western values and that it would be dreadfully paternalistic to suggest Aborigines are better off adapting to Western culture. Of course, this is politically correct codswallop. While many Aborigines support Native Title, (many don't as well) Native Title was never an Aboriginal initiative. The proposal originated from elites such as Central banker and Freemason Nugget Coombs, Anthropologist and British intelligence asset W. E. Stanner, Communist Leader Eric Aarons, Marxist anthropologist Nonie Sharp, University Professor Henry Reynolds and the Duke of Edinburgh Prince Philip.(15) We now can clearly see that the so-called "redneck" is far from the paternalistic racist offender. Actually, the elite possesses this deplorable trait. By enacting race-base policies, these elites disadvantage many Aborigines from the fruits of science and technology.
One other line in the preamble we should be wary of (and there are many) is, "mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment". On the surface, this appears to be a completely admirable proposition. However, many environmental scientists such as those from Environmental Perspectives Inc., realise the numerous international treaties will generally not be of environmental benefit.(16) Rather, they will be a noose around the small land holders neck allowing either multinational agribusiness to take over or the institutions of global governance to acquire these once private property rights.
Given that our government has already signed us into the UN's dictatorial Agenda 21, a reference to protecting our environment in the proposed preamble should be of some concern.(17) Not that Australians shouldn't care for our environment, but Agenda 21 along with numerous other environmental regulations, render citizens of the world to merely cogs in the wheel of totalitarian UN control. We would loose our private property rights and even be required to pay for the rain that falls out of the sky. In fact, rainwater is already a commodity - no more free rain for the farmers. Far from saving the environment, if history is a guide these types of controls would lead to poverty, civil unrest and mass murder would prevail. Name a past totalitarian regime and the tragic results are always the same.
Now let us turn to the body of the proposed republican model. We have 69 changes under consideration.(18) While some of these proposed changes are minor, many may have a dramatic impact. For example, currently all land title is held in the name of the Crown and exercised under the power of the Prerogatives. However, under the republican model, the parliament would have the power to legislate to have a communist system of land tenure. Alternatively, it could give all mineral rights to multinational companies.
Most of us are already aware of the Prime Minister's power to sack the President in the proposed Republic. However many Australians may not be aware of the powers in the proposed new Section 70 A where the Parliament has the power to vary the Prerogatives (the Reserve Powers) at its discretion, at any time it wishes. Considering our government's dismal track record, Australians would be sadly misinformed to vote YES for this republic.
Many monarchists argue the merits of British justice while quoting Magna Carta and referring to common law. They often point to failed republics as "proof" that "republics do not work". This is simplistic logic as a republic may take on any number of forms and one may equally point to relatively successful republican governments as well. A monarchy may provide good government for its people. However, resting absolute power in a monarch is understandably risky. Therefore, a constitutional monarchy is obviously a preferable option. Even still, our constitutional monarchy has not prevented the unenviable position we face, in a society where politicians have disillusioned vast numbers of Australians.
While the British judicial system has its merits, Magna Carta only refers
to the rights of freemen - not serfs - not most of the population.(19) As
the Greek philosopher Solon described in c. 630 - c. 555 BC, "Laws are
like spider webs. If some poor weak creature comes up against them - it is
caught. But the bigger one can break through and get away." The important
point here is that informed Australians and members of the Commonwealth will
realise that we live in democracies by name only. We are not freemen, but
human resources living under a dictatorial regime. It is now up to those
of us with high principles to initiate the long awaited change for honest
and accountable government.
To conclude, while many Australians may be upset to learn of our Monarchy's
elitist interests, what really matters is the truth and the prospect for
all Australians to be protected by our constitution. Sadly, we do not have
the opportunity to vote for a better constitution. Moreover, even if we had
a perfect constitution (if one existed), power may still be misappropriated
to the detriment of the nation's people. However, at least we are able to
send our politicians a clear message that we will not be conned into giving
them more power.
Sources:
Discuss this issue with Jeremy Beck on the Greenhouse Hoax Bulletin Board