The preparations for the coming referendum in November constitutes a crime ("Treachery" or "Seditious Enterprise" under the Crimes Act Section 24 etc or "Disqualification" as an MP under Sections 42 &44 of the Constitution).

It is being clearly demonstrated that it is the intention of many Members of both Houses of Federal Parliament

to depose the Sovereign, destroy Her Royal Powers, overthrow the Commonwealth Constitution, excite Her Majesty's subjects to attempt to alter our Constitution and Monarchical system of government by illegal means, and promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects so as to endanger the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.

Not only does this mean that these MPs are breaching their Oaths of Allegiance which they were required by the Constitution to swear before the Governor-General, the Queen's representative, but they are also showing an utter disregard for the sanctions of the Crimes Act of 1914 (s.24), and they are enticing the Queen's subjects to break their Oaths of Allegiance also.

Every natural-born Australian is taken as being under the Oath of Allegiance (in the 1917 case of R v Sir Roger Casement), and every migrant when naturalized was required, under the Constitution, to take the Oath of Allegiance. The words of the traditional Oath were based on those enshrined in the Constitution (in the Schedule). These words have now been unlawfully dispensed with, causing significant loss of value in the new Naturalization Oath. (see Comparison of Oaths)

The Lawful Unchangeable Preamble:

The Preamble to the U.K. Commonwealth Constitution Act is the compact that unites all Australians in an indissoluble federation under God and the Crown. It has no legal provision for destroying, removing or altering it, because such action was intended not to happen.

The party political attempt to substitute a new illegal Preamble for the lawful Preamble is really an attempt to form an illegal Government in occupation, because would introduce a substitute government instead of the Federal Government under God, the Crown and the Constitution.

Crown Title to Land:

Anyone who owns the Crown Title to land in Australia derives his title from the Sovereign of the United Kingdom to whom the whole of Australia belongs and has done since Captain Cook planted the Union Jack here and claimed the land for the King of England, against all contenders. The United Kingdom's ownership of Australia has remained secure since then, even against the Japanese. However, if we are changed to a Republic, Crown Title ceases to exist, and all property will probably revert to Aboriginal ownership.

Are you prepared to lose private land ownership?

The Imperial Acts and the Coronation Oath, etc.:

Since the Revolution of 1688, Britain's Crown has by law been specifically reserved for Protestant Monarchs only. The Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement make this abundantly clear, and therefore the Accession Declaration demands that every heir to the Throne shall be Protestant, and must swear accordingly.

In the Coronation Service (in the one statutory part of the Service), the Archbishop must administer the Coronation Oath, in which he demands of the Sovereign a promise to govern each country (including Australia) according to their respective laws and customs, but so as to maintain the Laws of God, causing Justice in Mercy to be executed in each country:

The Sovereign, with right hand upon the open Bible, must solemnly answer: "All this I promise to do."

The Monarch holds the Government of Scotland under the conditions of the Act of Union and must swear an Oath to preserve the rights of the Protestant Church in Scotland.

Our present Queen, like all other British Monarchs over many centuries, has also sworn these Oaths. The Statute for Settling the Coronation Oath was passed by Parliament at the beginning of the reign of William and Mary, over three hundred years ago.

King George III set the standard for the value, solemnity and lasting application of all Oaths, when he said:

"Where is the power on earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that Oath, particularly the one requiring me to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion.

"Was not my family seated on the Throne for that express purpose, and shall I be the first to suffer it to be undermined, perhaps overturned? No, No, I had rather beg my bread from door to door throughout Europe, than consent to any such measure.

"I can give up my crown and retire from power. I can quit my palace and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my life, but I cannot break my oath.

"If I violate that oath I am no longer legal sovereign in this country."

In the same way, if a Parliamentarian violates his sworn Oath, he is no longer a legal member of Parliament. We owe it to our Queen and to ourselves and our children and grandchildren to hold our members of Parliament to their Oaths of Allegiance. Otherwise, their allegiance is no longer to Australia, nor to the people of Australia, but to some powerful foreign masters in the United Nations who demand illicit allegiance with threats of Treaties and International Law.

Such disloyal Parliamentarians are happy to take us from under the Common Law protection of the Christian Monarchy, and put us into slavery under the non-Christian United Nations.

------oo0oo------

The Accession Declaration states:

"Whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queen marrying a Papist . . . . Every person who is or shall be reconciled to, or shall have communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown or Government of this Realm and Ireland; and in every such case the people of these Realms shall be and are hereby released of their allegiance." [Act 1, William and Mary, cap.2, sec.ii., 1689]

The Act of Settlement declares:

"The said Crown and Government shall, from time to time, descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestant."

The Accession Declaration requires each Monarch to swear as follows:

"I do solemnly, and in the presence of God profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, ,according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my power, according to law."

The Coronation Oath:

"Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, and your Empire of India, according to their respective laws and customs?

Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? And will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches, there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them, or any of them?"

The Scottish Coronation Oath is:

"I will inviolably maintain and preserve the settlement of the true Protestant Religion, with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland, as established by the laws made there in prosecution of the Claim of Right, and particularly by an Act intituled An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and the Presbyterian Church Government."

-----o0o-----

It is Definitely not Sovereign or Independent in the Legal Sense: Our State and Federal Constitutions stand secure legally and are not in any way affected by International Law or the United Nations Charter.

This was confirmed by Mr.Justice Hayne in the High Court of Australia in December 1998 in 73 ALJR p.233 & p.237, JOOSSE v ASIC (Hayne J).

Covering Clause 5 of the Constitution Act of 1900: This was used by the judge to rule that it is the Constitution that determines the issues. He said that this question is resolved by Covering Clause 5:

1. "the Constitution was wholly determinative" of the issues raised, the immediate question being "what law is to be applied in the courts of Australia?"
2. "provisions of an international treaty to which Australia is a party do not form part of domestic law unless incorporated by statute, and that proposition is not displaced by invoking "sovereignty" in its international law sense."

Referring to the suggestion that Parliament's Royal Style and Titles Act which changed the style or title by which the Queen is to be known in Australia [i.e. Queen of Australia, RJ] worked a fundamental constitutional change, the Judge ruled "The fact is, it did not. . . . So far as is now relevant, s.58 governs." The Judge has confirmed that the only way that Section 9 (i.e. the Constitution itself) can be changed is by a referendum according to Section 128. The Preamble to the UK Act and the Covering clauses 1 to 8 are excluded from any change under section 128.

He ruled secondly that international treaty provisions do not form part of Australia's domestic law unless incorporated by statute, regardless of the invoking of "sovereignty" in its international law sense."

The Judge said that Australia was constituted "a Colony", and became a self-governing Dominion. The Statute of Westminster and the Australia Acts all "deal, in a large part, with an aspect of political sovereignty", he said.

He continued:

"The third element in the submission made by the applicants, and the one to which greatest significance was given in oral argument, asserts that significance is to be attached to certain of Australia's international dealings. These contentions fail to take account of certain basic principles.

"First, provisions of an international treaty to which Australia is a party do not form part of domestic law unless incorporated by statute. It follows that what one of the applicants referred to as various human rights instruments do not of themselves give rights to or impose obligations on persons in Australia. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations does not have the force of law in Australia.

"Next, in so far as this limb of the argument sought to make some point about 'sovereignty' it is again necessary to note the distinction between sovereignty in international law and sovereignty in the sense described by Hart as 'the supreme legislative authority recognised in this system'. . . . . It is the second (point) that is the critical question in the courts and it is the second that is resolved by having regard to covering cl.5."

[The Federal Attorney-General has confirmed in a letter to me that the Commonwealth Constitution is still fundamental Law in Australia. Therefore section 58 is THE LAW for the Governor-General, not the invalid unauthorized Australia Acts 1986.]

The Constitution Examined:

The Constitution is Section 9 of an Act of the UK. Parliament. The Preamble and the first eight sections of that UK Act are distinctly separate from Section 9, therefore they are also distinctly separate from what we know as "The Constitution". . The first eight sections are usually referred to as the "covering clauses" to distinguish them from the 128 sections that make up "The Constitution".

The opening statements attached to the UK Constitution Act are called the Preamble. Constitutional preambles typically give a brief history of how the Constitutions came into effect, the sources of authority for and the objectives of the constitutions, and the values on which they are based. Preambles are important for legal reasons, as a source of interpretation available to Courts. The use of the word "indissoluble" in the Preamble to the UK. Constitution Act helped to defeat Western Australia's attempt in the 1930s to leave the Federation.

Covering Clause 5 of the UK Act

Section 9 of the UK Act (Defining our Constitution)

Therefore it is obvious from the above that a referendum under Section 128 in Chapter 8 of our Constitution can be used ONLY in order to obtain authority from the people to make alterations to THE CONSTITUTION as defined and divided into Chapters and Parts by Section 9.

Only those with a hidden agenda and no loyalty or allegiance to Australia or our Monarch could argue that this Section 128 can be used to attempt to change the unchangeable Preamble, to dissolve the indissoluble Federal Contract between God, Crown and the people of the States.

Visits since 15/7/99: