Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
Page: 6757

Australian Republican Movement

To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition undersigned shows that the proponents and supporters of the push to make Australia a Republic are now aware: -

of the inclusion of the word 'indissoluble' in the current Australian Constitution; and

that it was specifically included to prevent the Constitution from ever being dismantled;

and therefore, they should also be made aware that: -

the word 'indissoluble' can't legally be removed from the Constitution; and

the Constitution can't legally be dismantled; and therefore

Australia can't legally become a Republic;

regardless of whatever conniving or devious action may be taken by anybody trying to manipulate the provisions of the Constitution or of Constitutional Law itself.

AN AUSTRALIAN REPUBLIC IS ILLEGAL

I find it incredible that the debate about whether Australia should or should not become a Republic still continues; and I also find it incredible that nobody seems intelligent enough or responsible enough to bring the debate to a long overdue end.

From this point of view, the current Australian Constitution was framed on the basis that various States of Australia: -

"………have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland………"

and the word 'indissoluble' was specifically and deliberately included to prevent the Constitution from ever being dismantled; and this means that Australia will never be able to legally become a Republic.

At the time that Paul Keating introduced the proposal, I was amused by his failure to understand the meaning of 'indissoluble' and I wrote an appropriate poem as displayed hereunder: -

The Republican movement is a public disgrace,

And those involved should hide their face,

They'll still wish to attend the Commonwealth Games,

And attend all the functions with Commonwealth names,

They'll beg for assistance in times of war,

Through a lack of ability to defend our shore.

And they'll want to hope that those they've offended,

Won't sit on the fence and watch unappended,

An inferiority complex is the driving force,

And those involved should take a course,

Self-discipline and purpose is what they need,

Although this advice they will never heed.

Earlier Monarchs with all their Knights,

Would have solved the problem with all their might,

Through the Traitors Gate' and into the Tower,

And there the traitors would be made to cower,

Cower that is or join the dead,

For those who didn't would have lost their head.

I have bombarded the various areas of the media and the various Political parties with this fundamental fact ever since the proposal was introduced by Paul Keating but it has fallen on 'blind eyes' and 'deaf ears'.

Although, it must have eventually had some level of impact because about (20) years later a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia recently asserted that he had devised a method of removing the word 'indissoluble' from the current Constitution; and he is pursuing this goal so that the current Australian Constitution can then be dismantled so that Australia can become a Republic; and I find it disturbing that such a high profile member of the Australian judiciary could fail to understand the significance of the inclusion of the word 'indissoluble' in the Constitution.

This act demonstrates the infantile and ill-informed lengths which even an undisciplined member of the judiciary will go to, to achieve their desired goal; however, he does not appear to be astute enough to realize that taking an 'eraser' and removing the word 'indissoluble' from the current Australian Constitution does not change the fact that the Australian Constitution cannot be legally dismantled. In essence, and by analogy, what this fool is saying is that if motorists drive around with a spray can of black paint and cover up speed limitation signs so that they can't read them, then it is legal for them to drive at an excessive speed even though they are aware of the speed limit.

However, the act of 'hiding' the element of law in each instance does not affect its ability to be enforced; although, I remain somewhat surprised that with his level of intelligence, that he didn't simply suggest removing the word 'indissoluble' from the Australian Constitution with the use of 'liquid paper'. Nevertheless, to remove the word 'indissoluble' from the current Australian Constitution by any means whatsoever would, in itself: -

be a breach of the provisions of the Constitution itself; and

be an illegal act.

In this regard, the proponents and supporters of the push to make Australia a Republic are now aware: -

of the inclusion of the word 'indissoluble' in the current Australian Constitution;

and that it was specifically included to prevent the Constitution from ever being dismantled;

and therefore, they should also be aware that: -

the word 'indissoluble' can't legally be removed from the Constitution; and

the Constitution can't legally be dismantled; and therefore

Australia can't legally become a Republic;

regardless of whatever conniving or devious action may be taken by anybody trying to manipulate the provisions of the Constitution or of Constitutional Law itself; and just as interfering with the visibility of speed limiting signs would be illegal so too would any attempt to remove the word 'indissoluble' from the Constitution; and in the latter case it would also negate the principles of both Constitutional Law and Contract Law.

Nevertheless, the Australian Prime Minister was asked in about 2010 if she intended to take any action in connection with the push to make Australia a Republic and she replied that it wasn't a priority at that time.

I found the specific response rather confusing because it is well-known that both the Australian Prime Minister and the Australian Governor-General are firm proponents and supporters of the push to make Australia a Republic. However, I was only confused until I found out that the former Chief Justice was endeavouring to find a method of deleting the word 'indissoluble' from the Constitution; and his actions made it very clear that the probable reason that it wasn't a priority for the Prime Minister at the then time was that she was waiting for a means to remove the word 'indissoluble' from the current Constitution.

Even worse! The Australian Constitution requires that Australian Politicians swear an 'Oath/affirmation of allegiance to the Monarchy'; and commonsense alone dictates that for them to even talk about making Australia a Republic represents a breach of oath and involves sedition and treason; and all such offending Australian Politicians should:

lose their Parliamentary appointment;

lose their Parliamentary superannuation; and

lose all of their Parliamentary privileges; and spend a lengthy term in prison.

Worse yet! If Australian Politicians are not currently able to interpret and enforce our current 100 year old Constitution, how then are they ever going to be able to adapt to or even 'create' a new Constitution. In this regard, the current Australian Constitution specifies that it is 'indissoluble'; and one would have to question the intelligence of anybody who can't understand what 'indissoluble' means; and this would seem to even include some Australian Politicians.

Worst of all! Even if Australia could legally become a Republic, the only real outcome, other than THE SATISFACTION OF THE EGO OF SOME POLITICIANS, is that Australians would be faced with more expenses. In this regard, the proponents and supporters of the push insist that it wouldn't cost any more to be a Republic. However, I would suggest that anybody who believes that is either telling a lie or is naïve; and the ego of the 'El Presidente' alone would drive him/her to want: -

the purchase or construction of a 'Presidential Palace';

the purchase of Presidential housing in each capital City;

the purchase of a Presidential Yacht;

the purchase of a Presidential jet aircraft;

the purchase of a Presidential helicopter; and

the purchase of Presidential limousines;

etc., etc., etc.;

and then there would be other associated costs: -

the running costs for toys (transport);

the maintenance cost for toys (transport);

the security service;

the maintenance of buildings;

the salary;

the travel allowance;

the overseas travel allowance;

the general allowance;

the entertainment allowance;

etc., etc., etc.; and

probably the establishment of their very own new Federal Department;

all in all: -

suggested establishment costs of say $300 to $400 million; and

suggested annual running costs of say $100 million;

and all of the above would be provided to the continuing detriment of the provision of adequate essential services for the Australian taxpayers.

Above all! Such a proposal would not achieve anything positive at all; and the President would simply:-

entertain prominent people from around the world; and

travel throughout the world;

in order to engage in continuing self-boosting ego exercises.

Actually, the overall unity of the British Commonwealth is being progressively eroded 'World Wide' and even in England with: -

the push to make Australia a Republic;

insults to the Monarchy by Australian Politicians;

the breach of Constitutional responsibilities by Australian Politicians; and

the breach of allegiance to the Monarchy by Australian Politicians;

and 1 attribute this to the destructive influence of two recent Australian labour Prime Ministers. In fact, they are lucky that they weren't born earlier in history, because earlier Monarchs would have rowed them through the 'Traitor's Gate' at the Tower of London and had them both beheaded for treason along with their followers; after all, even the act of seeking a Republic is, itself, a breach of allegiance to the Monarchy.

In fact, it could be said that the Australian Republican Movement is not just causing disharmony within Australia and throughout the British Commonwealth, it is spreading like a contagious disease; and 1 would suggest that: -

the defiance in Taiwan;

the coup in Fiji; and

the coup in the Solomon Islands;

were all aroused by the rebellious attitude of the Australian Republican Movement towards the Monarchy. There will be more to come; and the only difference between the trouble in the various Islands and the Australian Republican Movement is that guns aren't being used in Australia—at least not yet.

In truth, I remain fascinated by the attitude and lack of ability by the proponents and supporters of the push to make Australia a Republic to understand the truth about the push to make Australia a Republic; and it makes me wonder if any of them are aware of the provisions of Section 59 of the current Constitution.

In this regard, Section 59 of the current Constitution allows the Monarch the right to annul any law which is considered inappropriate. Accordingly, I not only confidently assert that it is illegal to change Australia into a Republic but that if Australia was ever illegally changed into a Republic, the Monarch would:-

not only have the right to annul the laws pertaining thereto:

but would

have a mandatory obligation to do so to correct an illegal act; in legal support of the legal obligations conferred by the conditions of the Constitution itself; and anybody who doesn't understand that should take a revision course in Oxford English.

There have been references to: -

the fact that 'indissoluble' is only contained in the Preamble to the Constitution: and

the assertion by the late Sir Harry Gibbs that a referendum could only be successful if it was passed by each of the original States of Australia;

however. both of the above along with all of any other associated statements to justify the creation of a Republic are nothing more than convenient and deliberately selected erratic and desperate assertions to try to justify a desired objective; and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the proponents of the cause eventually resorted to the convenient excuse that: -

I wasn't alive at the time and I shouldn't be bound by somebody else's incompetence.

The operative word is 'indissoluble' and regardless of the fact that it is only contained within the 'Preamble' it is still a part of the Constitution; and the current Constitution can't be legally dismantled, amongst others things: -

whether a referendum was passed by each of the original States of Australia; or

whether a referendum was passed by every resident of Australia.

There is a popular belief and then there is the truth; and the simple truth is that an Australian Republic is illegal. In the meantime, tens of millions of dollars are being wasted on a lost cause by supporting the propositions for and against an illegal proposal; and therefore the matter should be brought to a long overdue end.

From this point of view, the failure to disclose the simple truth about the push to make Australia a Republic makes me wonder whether those involved on either side: -

aren't intelligent enough to work out the truth or understand the meaning of Indissoluble'; or

aren't now prepared to disclose the truth for fear of ridicule;

after all there are sure to be those who would ask: -

IF IT WASN'T LEGAL WHY DID YOU PERSIST WITH IT FOR (20) YEARS?

Nevertheless: -

YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN YOU ARE WELL-OFF UNTIL YOU AREN'T

and even if such a proposal was legal, I can only think of one reason that Australia should become a Republic—most third world Countries are; and Australia is doomed to become a modern third world country owing to the continuing failure by our Politicians, both State and Federal, to ensure the provision of adequate essential services.

—————

Your petitioner asks that the Senate makes a formal determination in this matter regarding: -

whether or not the word 'indissoluble' can legally be removed from the current Constitution;

whether or not the current Australian Constitution can legally be dismantled; and

whether or not Australia can legally become a Republic; followed up by information on such a determination: -

to all Politicians in Australia, both Federal and State; and

to all Australian residents;

because the money being wasted on what I confidently assert is an illegal proposal could be used for a more meaningful purpose.

by Senator Abetz (from 1 citizen).

Petition received.