What have They done to our Queensland Constitution?

or Political Vandalism - Straight from the Horse's Mouth.

Introduction:

Mr.Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Good Afternoon:

We are all here this afternoon because of what has been done by the "powers-that-be" to our Charter of Liberty - our QUEENSLAND CONSTITUTION of 1867.

We can describe what has happened to our Constitution as Political Vandalism, and I intend using, in support of some of my accusations, certain admissions and revelations that have come "straight from the horse's mouth" so to speak - by quoting some of what has been said in the Foreword and in the Introduction to the Annotated Constitution of Queensland 2001, and in the explanatory Clauses 3 and 4 of the Constitution itself.

Before governments started interfering with it, our legitimate QUEENSLAND CONSTITUTION of 1867 was indeed our Charter of Liberty, the fundamental law of this country, which was binding on our rulers in Parliament. It contained all the safeguards, under which our forbears expected we would be able to continue to live, and our children and grandchildren after us. They envisioned for their descendants (and us today) life In a fine Christian country, where liberty prevailed, with all the protections and benefits that come with living in a Common Law country whose foundation is Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords, to whom our Monarch must swear allegiance before she (or he) can be crowned.

But now this well-thought-out Constitution that is our heritage has been replaced by an illegitimate substitute - an unlawful REPUBLICAN version, that has removed "accountability to God" from the equation, and is instead being promoted as a Socialist necessity in this post-modernist era, when individual opinions, rather than Christian law, are paramount.

Straight from the Horse's Mouth

In the FOREWORD written by Premier Peter Beattie, we have it "straight from the horse's mouth". He says "Queensland's identity as a State, and the democratic ideals on which our State is built, rest on the Constitution."

Which Constitution is the Premier referring to in this context - the new fake Constitution or the true Constitution of 1867? We do appear NOW under these changed circumstances, to have two Constitutions. I will show you WHY and HOW shortly.

The legitimate Constitution identifies Queensland as a Christian Constitutional Monarchy. NOT as a democracy. The only time the Constitution officially gives us an opportunity to be democratic is at election time, when each individual elector is given the right to vote for a representative of his or her choice.

Notice, I said we have "the right to vote for a representative of our choice". Unfortunately, however, this democratic ideal has long since gone out the window. While talking glibly of democracy, the Party system has come between us and our constitutionally-required democractic elections. Democratic elections are only possitle when the people are given their right to vote for the candidate of their own free and absolute choice without the intervention of any candidate chosen, endorsed, and promoted by a Party for the people to vote on. When elected, that person then becomes the representative of the Party, rather than the representative of the individual elector.

We now have no true democratic freedom in the choice of a government. All we can do now is to vote for a candidate who has been chosen for us by one or other of the BIG parties. They have the democratic freedom - we do not. Furthermore, it is this pre-selection of candidates by the parties that puts elected member under the thumb of the party who endorsed him or her.

The way things are at present, there is no likelihood of a coalition of Independents forming government. But it could happen ONE DAY.

In the Foreword to this new Constitution, the Premier also said "The new consolidated Constitution of Queensland 2001 (brings our Constitution) together in ONE document and in language we can all understand." I disagree with both statements.

As I will show, we have at least two documents and possibly three. Also, a document that purports to be a legal document becomes a legal minefield if it is not written in precise legal language. That is a minus, not a plus.

Again quoting from the Foreword, "It is intended that these resource materials will set the foundations for building a Constitution that is more relevant for Queensland today and that reflects the aspirations of all Queenslanders."

Who gets to decide what sort of constitution is more relevant than another in controlling the power of parliamentarians? And who determines what reflects the aspirations of all Queenslanders - when everyone has different aspirations? A majority of one does not represent everyone in the State.

In the final paragraph of the Foreword, the Premier says "I hope you find the annotated Constitution of Queensland 2001 useful as a guide to the fundamental law that underpins our system of government." I don't believe it does this, because it says that it does not consolidate or explain any of the vital doubly-entrenched sections of the original Constitution. It simply relegsates these important sections to an Attachment at the end, where they will be ignored, forgotten and/or lost

These are the very sections that "underpin our system of government", and they were put there and doubly-entrenched deliberately, to ensure that the people of Queensland remain totally free from despotic and oppressive government.

Of course if people don't understand how and why these sections operate for their protection, then they will not be very likely to recognize the significant benefits, nor to demand that Parliamentarians obey them, as is their sworn duty in accordance with their individual Oaths of Allegiance to the Queen.

Every citizen's allegiance to the Queen, whether by birth or by naturalization, is fulfilled by assisting the Queen to fulfil her Coronation Oath of Allegiance to God, and the true Gospel of Christ. Therefore Christians, in particular, must be involved in upholding the laws of God in the enactments of Parliament. A law that is not in accordance with God's laws is null and void as a law of Queensland.

That should really prick our consciences. A Constitution is for the parliamentarians to obey, and the people to profit thereby. But more on that later.

Clause 3 of the new Constitution explains the object of rewriting the Constitution. It says "This Act declares, consolidates and modernises the Constitution of Queensland." Then an added Note (which is part of the Act) says: "However this Act does not consolidate the following constitutional provisions because of the special additional procedures, including approval by the majority of electors at a referendum, that may be required -

Constitution Act 1867, sections 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B and 53;

Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890, section 2;

Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934, sections 3 and 4.

Further, this Act does not consolidate the Constitution Act 1867, sections 30 and 40."

That is why I believe that we now have two Constitutions - but which one is REALLY our fundamental law?

A Brief History of Queensland's Constitution

Let's first look at a very brief history of Queensland's Constitution.

Queensland began as a self-governing Christian Constitutional Monarchy, under allegiance to Queen Victoria and Her Coronation Oath. We were constituted a separate independent Colony on 6th June1859 by Letters Patent from the Queen. In 1867 the documents relating to Queensland's constitution as a colony, independent from New South Wales, were consolidated into the Queensland Constitution of 1867. Queensland is still an independent Monarchy, part of the realm of today's Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain.

We have inherited English Common Law, and the Biblical Law of the Land, which includes the everlasting Imperial Laws such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and Habeas Corpus. These were devised over the centuries and applied successfully in England to put the King legally under God's Laws (despite his personal views) to make him protect the God-given rights of the individual citizen.

These inherited Imperial Acts (which wereall ratified by each State Parliament in Australia in the 1980s) uphold the sovereignty of the individual under God, and limit and define 'sovereignty' of Parliament To allow Parliament unlimited sovereignty would give governments power to oppress the individual by legislating for a favoured majority. The Law of the Land forbids that.

Each Monarch is bound by a solemn Oath not to allow anyone (not even Parliament) to oppress or persecute any freeman, or alter this Law of the Land in any way. And it is this Coronation Oath sworn by each monarch that everyone has to assist the Monarch to uphold, especially Ministers of the Crown and Judges.

More recently, an act of collusion extending over a number of years between all political parties resulted in the passing by State, Federal and United Kingdom Parliaments, of the "Australia Acts" in 1985/6 . As a result of ignoring doubly-entrenched sections of the Queensland and Western Australian Constitutions, serious unauthorized changes were secretly and unlawfully made to all the existing Constitutions of the six Colonies now called "States of Australia".

Republican manipulators behind these changes hoped to affect (even in an indirect way) the roles of the Queen and the Governor and their relationship to one another. This has directly weakened the Monarch's power to protect us from over-zealous politicians.

The following letter was written to the Qld Attorney General regarding The Australia Acts (Request) Bill 1999 which was passed and assented to without fuss or opposition. The purpose of these Bills is to allow Queensland and the other States to "sever their links with the Crown should they choose to do so."

This is a Bill of the type that requires a referendum under Section 53 of the Queensland Constitution, and so it cannot lawfully be put into effect unless and until the people give approval through this referendum. We must take action to ensure that this referendum is held. Otherwise these changes will be made unlawfully, without authority, and undemocratically, to the detriment of Queenslanders.

Therefore I urge all who read my letter below to write a letter to the State Attorney-General similar to, but NOT the same as, this letter of mine.

If Section 53(1) is ignored by Parliament, then Section 53. (5) of the Queensland Constitution contains provision for proceedings to be brought in the Supreme Court as under:

"53.(5) Any person entitled to vote at a general election of members of the Legislative Assembly is entitled to bring proceedings in the Supreme Court for a delaration, injunction or other remedy to enforce the provisions of this section either before or after a Bill of a kind referred to in subsection (1) is presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen.

I do not recall ever receiving a reply to the above letter.

So what I wish to show you this afternoon is that in spite of the best efforts of our predecessors, in formulating our Constitution, we now have, in 2002, a substitute watered-down version of our original 1867 Constitution.

With so many unlawful alterations and omissions this new Constitution hardly seems to portray a true Constitutional Monarchy at all. In fact we are now openly said to be a democracy instead of a Constitutional Monarchy.

Because of the restriction of time on the length of my speech, I will welcome questions at the end, if there is time.

Compare what we had previously with what we now have in 2002

We need to look closely at the Constitution of 1867 which successfully maintained our links with the United Kingdom, directly and quite apart from the Federal Government which came into being in 1901.

We need to compare what we had previously with what we now have under this new modern Queensland Constitution 2001, and check to see and to comprehend the enormity of the effect on us of this vandalism by republican sympathizers.

Let's notice the extent to which the history, nature and meaning of the original Constitution of Queensland and its built-in rights and freedoms has been hidden from us, or totally obliterated, by this so-called "consolidation" process which has finally happened about eight years after republicans formulated their take-over strategy.

Many of the alterations and particularly the changes to the entrenched provisions have come about through the workings of the invalid "Australia Acts" in 1986.

I will use the term "section" when referring to the content of the Constitution of 1867, and the term "clause" when referring to the Constitution 2001.

Section 1 of our Constitution describes Queensland as a colony with a Legislative Assembly, presided over by the Queen (or Her Representative). Parliament deliberately entrenched that section. It is therefore unalterable except as authorized by the direct will of the people by referendum.. It is unlawfully breached by Clause 7, which no longer describes Queensland as having been constituted a 'Colony'. Retaining the status of "Colony" as in Section 1 ensures we remain a Monarchy. But Clause 7 of the new Constitution omitted it, after saying that the description of "Colony" is entrenched and could not be changed. Omitting it altogether seems very like changing it, to me.

In 1901, for purposes of the Federation Contract, the Colonies were termed "States". However, reconstituting ourselves as a "State" has uneasy republican connotations. It was not considered appropriate, needful, nor wise to rewrite the existing Constitutions so as to re-constitute the existing monarchical Colonies as "States".

Section 53 is still law, and it is still entrenched unless a referendum grants approval to change it. It compels Parliament to hold a Referendum before passing any law that interferes with entrenched sections of the Constitution. Despite this, every Parliamentarian voted to pass the Australia Acts (Request) Act without authority. Evidence shows that Parliamentary members (and ex-members) cannot justify their actions then nor their inaction since. They have done nothing to have the referendum held, nor the Australia Acts (Request) Act repealed under Section 53.

Section 53 was inserted in the Queensland Constitution in 1977, specifically to prevent unauthorized changes to the following most valuable sections, unless the people agree by a prior referendum.

Yet unlawful unauthorized changes were made by Australia Act 1986 to entrenched Sections of the 1867 Constitution.

Section 11A - defined the office of the "Queen's representative" and forbade any "abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor" "except in accordance with section 53" [which requires a referendum.]

NOTE: Quietly, without a referendum, Section 11A (3)(a) had much of its distinctive Monarchical content omitted by Sec.13 of the First Schedule of the Australia Act to suit republicans.

Section 11B - defined the duty of the Governor to obey the Queen's instructions expecially re "his powers" "of assenting to or dissenting from or for reserving for" Her Majesty's pleasure Bills to be passed by the Legislative Assembly".

NOTE: Through the unlawful amendment of this section 11B by Sec.13 of the First Schedule of the Australia Act, this section was grossly changed, quietly, without a referendum, so that now Governors are not required to obey the instructions of the Queen whom they represent.

Section 14 - Governor's power to appoint and dismiss certain officers [ministers] was "subject to 11B".

NOTE: Without a referendum, Section 13 of the First Schedule of the Australia Act, again removes the Constitutional requirement for the Governors to obey the Queen whom they represent.

In the new Constitution of 2001, Parliament has consolidated the above changes and even made more changes contrary to the provisions inserted into the Constitution in 1977 to protect us, the people, from them, the State, and a possible dictatorial government.

Under the guise of consolidating the Queensland Constitution, new headings and new clauses have in effect repealed the 1867 Constitution and substituted a new one, or else we have two constitutions, operative together. In that case it has to be said openly which Constitution takes precendence.

Republicans want POWER unfettered by a Monarchy, and they hope to be able eventually to achieve such power through a Constitution rewrite.

All the political parties have had a hand in helping to develop, through 'consolidation", a non-Monarchical version of the Constitution Act of 1867! In fact in the case of the Australia Acts (Request) Act, there was quite a deal of collusion between all parliamentarians. This gave the government Power over the people, but NOT with God's authority.

1982-85 produced serious republican threats and efforts against the 1867 Constitution in an attempt to make unlawful changes. The Prime Minister, all Premiers and party leaders were involved in secret negotiations to find reasons and ways to vandalize the Constitutions of the Colonies. They aimed to sever State links with the Monarchy, without asking voters for approval.

That culminated in 1985/6 in the unexpected co-operation of Premier Joh and all the Parliament in the unauthorized passing of the Australia Acts (Request) Act. This enactment then contributed to giving power to both the Commonwealth and the UK Parliaments to pass the unauthorized Australia Act 1986. Extensive changes, such as removal of checks and balances that Section 53 was inserted to protect, were caused to Queensland's Constitution through Section 9 of the First Schedule of the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985.

The Australia Act breached Section 2, now allowing one State to overrule laws and practices in another State so as to regulate or tax persons and activities in that State, creating dangerous and detrimental possibilities.  We could become victims of planned political agendas and oppressive laws originating in other States.  As an example - N.S.W. now has power to legislate to prevent fruit-growing in S.E.Queensland to reduce fruitfly danger to N.S.W.  Special Federal laws could overrule objections from Queensland, increasing Federal control.

Serious damage was also done to the rights of Queenslanders through a constitutional change caused by Section 2(1) of the same Schedule.  The Constitution in Section 2 limits law-making to "within the colony" only, but the Australia Act makes 'extra-territorial' law-making legal.  The Constitutional restriction was entrenched in 1977 and cannot lawfully be removed unless the people give authority for the change by referendum.

Although these changes are invalid, they are not rectified in the consolidation of this new Constitution.  How can Parliament justify blatantly breaching Section 53 in 1985 and now again in 2001.

CONCLUSION - URGENT ACTION IS NEEDED.

I EMPHASIZE: The Constitution does not belong to politicians, but to the people.

It seems legally possible to have the Australia Acts (Request) Act repealed at any time, because according to Sec.53 such an unauthorized Act is null and void forever.  It has never at any time had the force of a valid Act because the people gave no authority to Parliament for the changes to our Constitution to occur (by whatever means).

Our Parliament cannot escape responsibility for these changes, nor for that republican treachery that makes the Queen be seen as a mere figurehead in Her Realm.  Queensland's Australia Acts (Request) Act, passed almost 10 years after the entrenchment of Sec.53 in 1977, and after the relevant High Court case in 1975, was also merely to add weight to the Commonwealth request to the British Government to pass an Act to alter entrenched provisions of the Queensland Constitution.  With the passing of the Australia Act in the UK and in Canberra, it is thus our State Request Act that can be treated as itself affecting entrenched sections of the State Constitution by effecting (causing) the changes.

Therefore urgent action needs to be taken to challenge the Australia Act 1986 in the High Court on the basis of evidence that the Queensland Request Act cannot be constitutionally valid because of