Can MALCOLM TURN BULL into GOLD Ingots?

Can Malcolm turn bull into gold ingots?

Probably not; but he certainly can spin!

Back in June 2013, Malcolm Turnbull, the Liberal Party’s failed opposition leader, and Australia’s best “worst” treasurer ever, Wayne Swan, fronted up together to a media pantomime to spruik a “fresh” push for a republic.

Wayne Swan warbled his defence of a republic with little or no technical reason for change but pointed to a recent OECD survey which indicated that Australia is the best place to live. That being the case, why would one want to change the existing stable form of government that allowed for such an assessment?

Malcolm, on the other hand, played on constitutional technical aspects to try and convince us to make change to a republic and also offered up the cyber sphere as a probable way to seek more engagement to achieve that end.

But Malcolm's assertions about the history of the evolvement of the Australian crown are obscure and don't reflect reality. Anything said by Malcolm at this pantomime meeting becomes transparently void if one reads the Final Report of the Constitutional Commission 1988. This report was authored by Sir Maurice Byers CBE QC, Professor Enid Campbell OBE, The Hon Sir Rupert Hamer KCMG, The Hon E G Whitlam AC QC and Professor Leslie Zines and offers the correct pathway of evolvement of Australia from colony/dominion to an independent and sovereign country.

The 1988 Constitutional Commission also stated 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 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 comment of Gibbs CJ in Pochi v Macphee[104] that 'The allegiance which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia.'

But Malcolm's rash and insane support for Global Warming and hate of the Australian crown is buried in his DNA.

He wants the crown out of the way so that Australia can be absorbed by some monolithic global government and supports Global Warming so that companies such as Goldman Sachs can make money out of markets such as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme and which has done so since its inception in 2005.

The moral of the story here is that you should never believe everything that Malcolm Turnbull says is the gospel truth!

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.

The Bill - Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill 2008.pdf

Hansard Extract - Senate_Hansard_Extract_2008NOV11.pdf 

SENATE INQUIRY INTO AN AUSTRALIAN REPUBLIC IS FLAWED JUST LIKE THE 1999 PROPOSAL

The current Senate inquiry into an Australian Republic, headed up by half a dozen of our elected public servants, has failed to present an even balance from both sides of the republican debate.


To date, 28 of the 33 participants who have aired their views before the committee at a raft of public hearings in each of the state capitals (except Brisbane) are republican. Accordingly, the committee has shown a distinct reluctance to listen to anyone who opposes the introduction of an Australian republic. This will only result in a biased finding by the committee.


That said, there has been one positive result emerging from the hearing and that is that there needs to be better education about our constitutional arrangements. Not only do the people of Australia need to have better access to accurate material relating to our constitution but so do our elected public servants if some of the comments from the hearings are any guide.


At the Adelaide hearing on 19 May, Natasha Stott-Despoja posed the following question to one of the participants "Am I a subject of the Queen?". Fortunately, the person to whom she was posing the question put her on the right track. Had the Senator read and understood the Australian constitution she would have known that we are all subjects of the Queen as section 117 of the constitution asserts. Further, Gibbs CJ in the "Pochi v Macphee" case found that "The Allegiance which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia" further confirms the constitutional reality.


It is a pity that the Senator does not understand our constitution but then again wasn't she the person who turned Canada into a republic by just moving her lips a few years back?


With the Darwin and Townsville hearings still to be undertaken at the end of June one wonders what other gems may come out of the hearings. Maybe a short sojourn in the warmer climes during the southern winter cold will help move things along.


Email Address: support@statusquo.org

Website: http://www.statusquo.org 

LATHAM'S LOST REPUBLIC WILL REMAIN SO

Labor leader Mark Latham's processes for an Australian republic will fail before it gets off the ground.
Mucking around with "indicative plebiscites" is a dangerous game to play when dealing with matters that should be addressed only by s128 of the Australian constitution. There are two things that Mr Latham would be wise to consider before going down this path.

Firstly, there is an aspect about the conduct of a plebiscites that should be considered carefully. That is, if a plebiscite shows that a majority of Australians wish to have a republic, Latham's Labor could be faced with the prospect of their republic being rejected at a subsequent referendum. This situation could occur because an indicative plebiscite to give the government approval to proceed with a referendum may only be passed by the smallest of majorities i.e. 50.01%. However, a referendum itself, which will also require a majority of states to approve, may not be endorsed. This would present a predicament of Gilbertian proportions to the rest of the world as well as embarrass those who seek the establishment of a republic. 


Noting that all of the 8 referenda passed to date have achieved more than 54.38% Australia-wide, 4 additional proposed referenda, which achieved more than 50% overall, did not gain the necessary majority of states in each case. Sustained polling on the republic issue to date doesn't appear to guarantee endorsement by the Australian people. While it is acknowledged that a referendum could be passed with the smallest of margins it may require that each of the 6 states approve the referendum. Historically, this seems an unlikely event.

Another and more sinister scenario is that if a plebiscite indicates that a majority of Australians support the general concept of a republic then constitutional change could take place without the will of the Australian people. In his book "DEMOCRACY choosing Australia's republic", the late Richard McGarvie correctly asserts that: "With the power from the Australia Acts, the Commonwealth Parliament, by Acts supported by the state Parliaments, can amend the provision in the Statute of Westminster that precludes it from amending the Commonwealth Constitution , the covering clauses or the preamble".

Clearly, and with the "moral" support of a successful plebiscite, the combined Australian parliaments could alter the Australian constitution to convert Australia's current stable form of government to that of a republic without further consulting the Australian people. This may not seem so crazy if Latham's Labor wins the next federal election; that could see all of the Australian states and the Federal government under control of Labor. It should also be remembered that the Australia Acts were, principally, a child of the Hawke Labor Government. There is nothing in law that prevents constitutional change in this manner.

Australians should be very wary of any plebiscite that seeks opinion on any proposed constitutional change. See "Is Our Constitution Safe?" for further reading on this subject at www.statusquo.org.

Email Address: support@statusquo.org

Website: http://www.statusquo.org