To the Parliamentary Legal, Constitutional, and Administrative Review Committee (LCARC)
on Draft Bills for a Consolidated State Constitution and a Consolidated Parliament Bill

Introduction:

This submission is lodged by Mrs. Rona Joyner on behalf of the three above-named organizations. Each organization officially expresses in good faith a similar considered opinion: that our Queensland Christian Constitutional Monarchy has already been considerably weakened by the UK Australia Act 1986, and is now under further serious threat through this 'consolidation exercise' currently being undertaken by LCARC.

It is the desire of each organization, acting with innocent intentions and in good faith as defined in Section 45 of the Criminal Code, to point out the perceived errors and defects in the present constitution and in the proposed new consolidated version.

In that sense Part A of this submission deals with three issues, as under -

(1) Perceived Errors and Defects in present Constitution caused by the Australia Acts (Request) Act.

Section 53 of the Constitution clearly entrenches Sections 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B, 14 and 53 and outlaws any Act that even implies bringing about any change without the authority of the people by referendum. The people have never at any time given Parliament the necessary authority to pass the Australia Act (Request) Bill into law. The schedule which is part of this Bill interferes with Secs. 2, 11A, 11B, 14.

Under Section 53(4), it should have been referred to the people first, then the Queen herself (and not to the governor for assent at all). Instead power was invoked conspiratorially to have all State Parliaments pass it in 1985 in order to add weight to the Commonwealth request to the UK Parliament to pass its Australia Act 1986 so as to sever residual links with the Crown in each State.

Should LCARC perpetuate these unauthorized null and void changes to our Constitution?

(2) Perceived Errors and Defects in new consolidated Constitution caused by breaching Section 53.

Section 53 of the Constitution clearly entrenches Sections 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B and 14 and outlaws any Act that interferes unlawfully with them. In rewriting the Constitution in 1998 and also by amendment under the Public Service Act 1996 unlawful changes have been made to all these sections. "Colony" has been changed to "State". Previous correct grammar has been corrupted.

All references to "the Queen", and "Her Majesty" have been removed without any authority from the people. A new office with a new title, "Sovereign" (Cl.4, Part II, p.3) has been created instead, but without any definition. This prepares underhandedly and unlawfully for a new role for a new republican Head of State NOT based on 'hereditary succession' but on an appointee's 'vested power' only. These defects will be to the detriment of the people because they will allow or cause us to lose the Imperial role of the Queen and Her Oath of Allegiance to God. This means loss of our Christian basis.

Should LCARC excite disaffection against the Constitution and Her Majesty (Criminal Code s.44)?

(3) The Burning Questions being asked of LCARC in good faith by Patriotic Queenslanders.

1. How can Parliament justify blatantly breaching Section 53 in 1985 and now again in 1998?

2. Why is LCARC perpetuating the defects, and not restoring the people's entrenched sections?

3. Why is our State Constitution being rewritten? People are not begging their MPs to do it.

4. What is the ulterior motive behind this committee-driven consolidation exercise?

5. Is the Constitution being treacherously changed according to a hidden agenda?

6. How do LCARC members stand in the light of the Criminal Code s.44 on Sedition?

We request that LCARC deal with these questions when reporting to Parliament:

Part B of this submission addresses the Christian basis of our Constitution; and

Part C of this submission responds to the LCARC questions raised in their Interim Report.

Conclusion to this submission

Table of Appendices to this submission

A. Background to the Three Issues of concern.

Parliamentary Power v. Authority: One entrenched Section (11B) was repealed and altered, and three other entrenched sections (2, 11A and 14) were altered without authority, by the passing of the Australia Act 1986 through action perpetrated by a power grab under Sec.51(xxxviii) of the Commonwealth Constitution. A way around having to give the people a say by referendum had been carefully and deviously orchestrated so that all the Parliaments of Australia (with the collusion of the UK Parliament) could give themselves the POWER to achieve that which they had NO AUTHORITY even to attempt to do.

I can only view this as unauthorized, probably even criminal, usurpation of power, something which urgently needs to be corrected in any rewritten constitution, not only because of the removal of the constitutional checks and balances in the entrenched sections, but also in view of the fact that Section 2(1) of the First Schedule of the Australia Act 1986 has made lawful (and very detrimental to Queensland) something that was previously unlawful under Sec.2 (Queensland Constitution) - permitting a State to make extra-territorial laws, so as to regulate or tax persons and activities in another State. However, this conflicts with the entrenched Section 2, which limits law-making to "within the colony" only, and cannot lawfully be changed without a referendum.

Queensland's Constitution was established on the basis of delegated authority, not raw power. The Monarch rules with delegated authority from God. Parliament rules with delegated authority from the Monarch. In certain circumstances provision is made for the people to grant specific authority to Parliament through a referendum on a particular issue. What was done through the Australia Acts (Request) Act lacked the authority of the people (Sec.53 of the Constitution). The fact that the manipulators behind the plan found a way to grab power under a Federal law did not give them authority from Queensland citizens to alter entrenched Constitutional provisions. It is delegated authority that is the linchpin of our Constitutional Monarchy.

In a High Court case 'Commonwealth v. Queensland (1975)', the majority decision (three judges) held that a statute merely intended to give additional weight to a request to the British Government can be treated as affecting provisions of the Federal Constitution.

In Queensland a similar thing happened - the Australia Acts (Request) Act was passed, intended merely to add weight to the Commonwealth request to the British Government to pass an Act to alter the entrenched provisions of the State Constitution. When the Australia Act was passed in the UK and in Canberra, it was thus our State Request Act that is treated as effecting (bringing about) changes to entrenched sections of the Queensland Constitution, so our Parliament cannot escape responsibility for the changes made, as under -

Section 9 of the First Schedule required the Governor to disregard certain royal instructions as to assenting, dissenting or reserving Bills for Her Majesty's pleasure. Parliament's mandate is to make good laws only.

This disgraceful law conflicts with Section 11B of the Constitution, which before being changed in 1986, read:-

After amendment by Sec.13 of the First Schedule of the Australia Act, without a referendum, Sec.11B reads:

This means Governors are not now to obey the Queen they represent!

Before being changed Section 11A read as follows -

Sec.13 of the First Schedule amended s.11A without referendum, omitting 'Signet' and last 12 words in Sec.3 (a).

Legal opinion about the referendum requirement was forthcoming at the time from Mr. R. B. O'Hair, a First Class Honours graduate in Law, and Constitutional Law Lecturer at Queensland University. He referred to the High Court majority decision, (mentioned above), and said that based on that view he "would regard it as unwise to proceed on the basis that no referendum is necessary" (i.e. for the Queensland Request Act). I believe the Queensland Act (as in the High Court case) is responsible for affecting entrenched provisions in the Queensland Constitution, thus becoming void without the required referendum.

On 7/12/76, (Hansard, p.2172), Premier Bjelke-Peterson, supported entrenching amendments (enacted 1977):

"The Bill provides that, in acting to appoint or dismiss Ministers, the Governor . . . shall not be subject to the directions of any person whatsoever. That excludes the possibility of his ever being directed by the Governor-General or by the Prime Minister, or, for that matter, by the Premier of Queensland or any other person, although it does not exclude the possibility of his receiving new instructions by letters patent from the Queen."

NOTE: Sec.14 says the Governor 's powers are subject to Sec.11B. Since the Australia Act, Sec.11B(1) on the Governor's duties has been omitted. He is no longer bound to obey the Queen, but the Premier instead!!

The Premier continued: "(My government) believes that it is necessary to entrench this safeguard against the possibility of changes being brought about by Parliament contrary to the wishes of the electorate.

"To entrench the present system, the Bill provides that none of its clauses can be altered by Parliament unless the Bill is first presented to the people by way of referendum as prescribed in the Bill. The requirement of entrenchment is also itself entrenched so that the guarantee cannot be undone. . ." Section 53 was to make everything permanently safe for the entrenched sections. (Yet in 1985 Sir Joh urged MPs to override it, and the entire Parliament voted to do so!)

Here are the words of Section 53 as entrenched still in the Constitution:

On 31/1/86 the Hon.Charles Porter wrote: "In 1977 we so amended the Queensland Constitution Act as to ensure that any change to the established relationship of the Queen to Queensland could not occur unless first supported by a referendum. But passing the Australia Acts (Request) Act does, in real fact, alter the terms of our State Constitution, and many might see this present way of doing it as an underhand technique to avoid holding a referendum. This diminution of the Crown's reserve powers, without keeping to our referendum pledge, will be hard to justify. . ." It is a fact that any Parliamentarian who does anything to attempt by unlawful means to alter the role of the Queen or Governor displays disloyalty and incites disaffection towards the Monarch to whom he/she has given allegiance. Criminal Code Sec.44 defines this as seditious intention.

On the other hand the judgment of Mr.Justice Connolly in R. v. The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General for Queensland ex parte Alan George Skyring, 17/2/86, did not seem to take into account the earlier and opposite majority High Court decision re the effect of asking the UK Parliament to enact provisions which it has the power to do, but seemingly not the authority to do without the permission of us, the people.

THEREFORE: The perceived errors and defects in the present constitution caused by the Australia Acts (Request) Act are a big issue of concern. As I have shown above the Parliament did not have the authority to pass this Bill, and therefore the resulting Constitutional changes are not lawful. LCARC, in consolidating the Queensland Constitution, may thereby put themselves in the uneasy predicament of knowingly being partakers in a seditious exercise, being party to ratifying the unlawful provisions of an unlawful Act.

Modernizing and Rewriting Constitutions can Cause Errors and Defects: 0n p.2, Interim Report, it says the committee aims to bring disjointed laws together into two easy to read primary statutes. The danger of this is that the new document could then also become easy to be distorted, manipulated, reinterpreted, or ultimately misconstrued, intentionally or not - the original documents posed no problems over the years.

Even innocent errors can upset original meanings, but it is even worse if new outcomes are being deliberately planned, i.e. The ALP Platform (1982) shows that plans are under way to alter our Constitutional Monarchy to a republic. It says under "Constitution and Rules (1982)" on p.2, Clause 13: "Reform of the Australian Constitution and other political institutions to ensure that they reflect . . . the existence of Australia as an independent republic." To do this without a referendum under Section 53 is a seditious enterprise.

The leader of the Liberal Party in the '80s, Sir William Knox, warned us (Hansard 9/10/85 p.1708): "If something as important as the Constitution is given to people who are not interested in it, wonderful opportunities will be presented to manipulators to influence those people to design a Constitution that suits the manipulators. The manipulators will be the ones who will appoint the members of such a popular group that will examine changes to the Constitution."

My concerns over Constitutional manipulation are similar to those of Sir William, and also Mr. Rob Borbidge who spoke in Parliament (on 8/10/85) regarding the Federal Constitution. He saw the danger of rule by hidden agenda and group recommendations taking over from rule by local MPs bringing their constituents' concerns to Parliament, when he said of 'people's commissions': "What then is the purpose of Parliament? . . . .It is a well-known, old and tried socialist trick that when a government wants a commission to come up with results that suit it, it has only to appoint the right people to write the recommendations. . . What is wrong with our Constitution? What is the ulterior motive behind this continual white-anting of the Constitution?"

I again refer to Sir William Knox's speech in 1985. After telling how the Australia Act would destroy the independence of the individual and the State, he then disclosed the parliamentary conspiracy to ensure the unanimous passing of the Bill. If collusion 13 years ago caused all Parties to vote in a dangerous Bill "because it had been agreed across the nation", then consulting together today "to obtain acquiescence" among all Parties is also likely. "That which has been determined" this time is probably that consolidation should bring us even closer to a republic. Too many MPs seem willing to circumvent the people's legal right to have their say by referendum. Pauline Hanson, however, has committed her Party in writing to uphold our Constitutions.

Small Word Change, Big Impact Change: In the Interim Report, under 'IMPORTANT NOTICE', it is stated "In preparing submissions, please keep in mind the aim of the current exercise, namely, to consolidate existing constitutional provisions, rather than propose extensive reform of the State's constitutional arrangements."

However, in my opinion some of the suggested changes not only go far beyond anything that could be termed (on the same page) "accurately bringing together existing 'constitutional' provisions, amended in an appropriate manner", but they also constitute unlawful extensive reform. The changes may seem slight, but the impact on our Monarchical system will be devastating, further down the track. We must not risk a pagan socialist republic.

A Bill for the Constitution Amendment Act (No.1) calls itself "A Bill for an Act to make minor and stylistic amendments of the Constitution Act 1867 and the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890." It then proceeds to interfere with the entrenched sections protected by Section 53, by removing from them all references to "the Queen" and "Her Majesty" and creating a new office with a new title, "Sovereign" (Cl.4, Part II, p.3).

This is hardly a minor amendment! No one, not even a Parliament, nor a Parliamentary Committee, has any authority to interfere with the role of the Queen without the required Section 53 referendum, especially as Her Majesty is by law styled "Queen of Queensland." Likewise the word "Crown" should not be altered to "State". It is the Crown that protects our property, our life and liberty from being taken from us unjustly by the State.

THEREFORE: The perceived errors and defects in the new consolidated constitution caused by breaching Section 53 are of great concern. As I have shown above and in the previous section, Parliament will not have the authority to pass this Bill, because entrenched sections need a Referendum to be held first before change.

1. How can Parliament justify blatantly breaching Section 53 in 1985 and now again in 1998?

• To remove from the Constitution all references to "Queen" and "Her Majesty" and to equate 'Crown' with 'State' is one of the prime objectives of the treacherous pro-republican socialist movement. Mr. De Lacy (ALP) confirmed this when he said on 9/10/85: "(Republicanism) is a system of government that does not have a hereditary monarch as head of state." So the republicans are expecting to get rid of the Queen and hereditary succession without having to go to the people - ("Sovereign" is a ruler with vested power, not "hereditary succession"). Mr. De Lacy gloated over the treachery of the plot, saying: "If the Government believes that this Bill will entrench the monarchy in the Australian sphere, it is badly advised. . . Sir William Knox agrees with me on that point."

• There was an Australia Act Conspiracy, as I have shown. I have quoted Sir William Knox from his memorable Parliamentary speech. It was memorable because after detailing the dangerous effects of the Australia Act on the independence of the individual and the State, and exposing the parliamentary collusion to ensure the unobstructed passage of the Bill, and despite its undesirability, he said the Liberal Party would support it. All party leaders had been consulted nationally "to obtain acquiescence." "If it is not passed by every State Parliament, it will not be acceded to. That has been determined."

The terrible reality was that every Parliamentarian in the country agreed to be party to a raw power deal to circumvent without authority the people's legitimate right by law in Queensland and Western Australia to have their say. If that is a sample of republican democracy, it is no wonder so few ordinary citizens want to live in a republic.

5. Is the Constitution being treacherously changed according to a hidden agenda?

Comment: I am sorry to say that the more I study the information available, the more I am convinced that a 'hidden agenda' has a lot to do with this and the EARC Report.

Removing the words 'Queen' and 'Her Majesty' from the Constitution, substituting 'Sovereign', and changing 'Crown' to 'State', without first holding a referendum, all unlawfully breach the entrenched Sections 2 and 2A and 53. They constitute a totally unacceptable major constitutional change.

What it does is expose the hidden agenda behind this 'imposed-from-the-top' rewriting of the Constitution, and that makes the entire exercise very suspect - i.e. why must "Crown" be changed to "State" (Schedule 2, proposed Constitution of Queensland Act, p.43), and "Colony" to "State" (Part II, p3)?

• If such changes are so needful now in 1998, why were they not deemed necessary in 1901?

• I repeat - my concerns in regard to our State Constitution are similar to those Mr. Rob Borbidge voiced on 8/10/85 regarding the Federal Constitution. Rule by hidden agenda and group recommendations is taking over from rule by local MPs bringing their constituents' concerns to Parliament., This puts doubts on the purpose of Parliament, for, as he said, by appointing the right people to write the recommendations, a governments can come up with results that suit it.

• Also why must we now "expressly incorporate" Article 9 of the 1689 Bill of Rights "in the Bill rather than to continue to rely on the imperial statute" (Part III, p3)? It is obvious that socialist manipulators know that if the Queen goes, so do the Imperial Laws and MPs freedom of speech in Parliament.

• Article 7 of the same entrenched Bill of Rights (reinforced by the Imperial Acts Application Act 1984) gives citizens the right forever to be armed in self-defence, but there is no recommendation to "expressly incorporate" Article 7 "in the Bill" as well, so as to ensure that citizens' rights to defend their life, liberty and property are protected as well as the rights of the MPs to say what they like in Parliament. Parliamentarians must not put their rights above rights of the people.

6. How do LCARC members stand in the light of the Criminal Code s.44 on Sedition?

Comment: According to the Criminal Code, sec.44, I fear LCARC has much to answer unless this opportunity to redeem our original Christian Common Law Constitutional Monarchical system is taken up.

• It must be 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, and never has had the force of an Act because the people no authority to Parliament for the changes to our Constitution to happen.

• It cannot be claimed that the Schedule to the Australia Acts (Request) Act is not part of the Queensland enactment and therefore does not apply to the Queensland Parliament, because it has already been determined that IT IS and DOES - by the judgment in the case of "re Foley Channell v. Foley" (1952), [53SR (NSW) 31 by Roper CJ in Eq. at 36], recorded in Statutory Interpretation in Australia by D.C.Pearce (with a foreword by Rt.Hon. Sir Garfield Barwick, then Chief Justice), where it was stated - "His Honour said, 'The schedule itself, however, is a legislative enactment.'"

• Section 14(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act also states that every schedule to an Act is part of the Act itself. Therefore Queensland's Schedule requesting a change to the Constitution is NOT separate from the Act which the State Parliament passed without the authority of the people, and which the then Premier proudly claimed did make a change "to strengthen" (ie, to change) the office of Governor.

• LCARC needs to recommend that urgent action be taken to challenge the Australia Act 1986 in the High Court, on the basis of the High Court majority decision which I have already mentioned, and as not complying with Section 51 (xxxviii), because of the evidence I have presented in this submission.

B. The Law of God and the Gospel of Christ is the Basis of our Constitution

"Blessed is the Nation Whose God is the LORD." (Psalm 33.12): This submission is lodged by Mrs. Rona Joyner on behalf of the three organizations, each of which expresses a similar considered opinion that our Christian Constitutional Monarchy appears to be under serious threat through this 'consolidation exercise', which will be to the detriment of the people if it allows us to lose the Imperial role of the Queen and Her Oath of Allegiance to God. Without Her Majesty's Oath, our laws cease to be based on God's Laws and Christ's Gospel, and Queensland ceases to be a legally Christian country.

The many great advantages enjoyed by nations that are built on the Word of God are well known and easily demonstrated, even today, after our Christian foundations have been white-anted for decades by the enemies of the people. Deuteronomy Chapter 28 and Leviticus Chapter 26 give details of how God blesses or curses a nation according to whether or not its rulers ensure that the people obey the laws of God. Australia frequently reaps God's judgments nationally for the way our rulers reject their Oaths of Allegiance to Him.

Australia is a Common Law nation under God, and I quote from a 1974 article by Australia's longest serving Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, (Lib.) wherein he said:

• "When we in Australia come to discuss civil and political rights, it is necessary to remember that one of the functions of the common law, devised over a course of centuries in England and adopted by us by inheritance, has been to protect the individual against personal infringement of his personal rights. . . . To live in a common law country is in itself the very best guarantee of the rights of the individual. . ."

George Washington said the following words in regard to the founding of the United States of America:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

The support of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was paramount in the formation of the United States, and in less than 200 years their Christian Constitution had made America the most powerful and richest nation on earth.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ was also paramount in the forming of the Federation of the Australian States, and it was for this reason that our Christian Commonwealth Constitution was responsible for Australia's meteor-like rise to a proud, prosperous, free-enterprise nation, safe and happy, in less than sixty years, despite having had to participate along the way in two world wars and a worldwide depression.

Even prior to Federation, all the Colonies in Australia were Christian Constitutional Monarchies, with the people paying total allegiance to God through their allegiance to Queen Victoria and her heirs and successors. Because every Monarch gives Allegiance to God - by the Oath which must be sworn before being crowned, our Parliaments, judicial bodies, government departments, all areas of public life, were, until the white-anting commenced, subject to the influence of Christ's Gospel (e.g. the right to life, liberty and property, 'innocent until proved guilty', the dating of official documents and departmental gazettes - "In the year of our Lord, etc")

The Constitution Protects the People: The Monarch's Oath includes Her personal obligation (and that of Her heirs and successors) to uphold and protect forever the rights and freedoms of all the people of Her Realm and their descendants, as is guaranteed in Magna Carta 1215-1297 and the Bill of Rights of 1688/9. This historic Bill (Cl. 9) is recognized as the legal protection for Parliamentary debate. (See Part III, pp.2&3) Other clauses of that Bill are equally as entrenched and binding, as are various entrenched sections of the constitution that protect our citizens against would-be dictators in government, e.g. Sections1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B and 53:

THEREFORE: Our Constitution should remain under the Crown and emphatically Christian taking note of the American Supreme Court ruling in 1892 which is very relevant and applicable to Queensland at this time:
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the
Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this
extent our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

C. My Response to Interim Report, S.6.1 "What to Address in Public Submissions"

(Lack of time has prevented my giving full comments.)

1. The accuracy of the Bills, parts of the Bills or individual clauses as representations of the existing provisionsthat they seek to consolidate and modernise.

Modernizing and rewriting Constitutions risks inaccuracy and wastes resources that could be better used.

Even slight changes can often bring innocent inaccuracies and upset original meanings. It is even worse if loop-holes for illicit change are being deliberately planned, i.e. The ALP Platform (1982) says under "Constitution and Rules (1982)" on p.2, Clause 13: "Reform of the Australian Constitution and other political institutions to ensure that they reflect . . . the existence of Australia as an independent republic."

It is patently obvious that any attempted change to a republic at any time is illicit and seditious, for no legal machinery was put into place at the time of Federation to enable the licit breaking of the forever indissoluble contract under God and the Crown, simply because the idea of ever being a republic was anathema at the time.

I have already quoted Sir William Knox on 9/10/85, when debating against the effects of the Australia Act (Request) Bill, and warning of the possibility of manipulators sabotaging the rewriting of a Constitution. He also exposed the parliamentary conspiracy at the time that ensured the safe passage of the Bills for the Australia Act. I have already referred to the ease with which this unpublicized collusion happened 13 years ago, and can still happen today in the rewriting of a consolidated State Constitution.

This time "that which has been determined" is very likely to be that our Monarchical Constitution must go and a republican one take its place. This time the terrible reality is that most Parliamentarians in the State will agree to be party to another raw deal to circumvent the people's legitimate right by law in Queensland to have their say by referendum. Of all the parties, One Nation seems to be the only one eager to defend the people.

I have also quoted from a similar speech by Mr.Rob Borbidge where he pointed out dangers that can arise when governments want appointed bodies to come up with recommendations that suit them.

As a result of my research, I believe it is most unsafe to promote any rewriting of the Constitution at all, especially considering the lack of loyalty to Crown and Constitution displayed by many who are involved in the consolidating process. The whole exercise allows and encourages pro-republicans to offend against the Criminal Code and Crimes Act in the matter of treason, treachery, and sedition (see Section 44 of the Criminal Code.) It is not as though they are meeting a public outcry for a consolidated, rewritten Constitution.

I have referred previously to the committee's aim is to bring disjointed laws together into two primary statutes that are easy to read, to enhance public access to, and understanding of, our Constitution. It is dangerous to be too eager to make official documents easy to read and understand, because the document will probably then also be easy to be distorted, manipulated, reinterpreted, and ultimately grossly misconstrued, intentionally or not. This would be disastrous after so many years of having had a Constitution that posed no problems.

Changes and inaccuracies through rewriting lessen our title to British Common Law which is the key to our retaining individual liberty. Power over the Constitution is ours. It lies not in the hands of the elite, Parlia-mentarians, bureaucrats, etc., but in the people, by referendum. This is our birthright, and that of our children.

THEREFORE: I believe that unfortunately the final result of this review - the rewritten consolidated Constitution - will have errors and defects, many of them intended, for the purposes of the 'hidden agenda' (to make the way easy for the introduction of a republic.).

I have highlighted the risks and defects associated with this rewriting and consolidating our State Constitution and included evidence, including extracts from Hansard, to support my claims of political and anti-Christian conspiracies and hidden agendas, all biassed towards turning Australia and all the States into pagan socialist republics, which have nothing anywhere in the world to commend them. The Queen is no threat to Queensland but party political Governments are. No republic is an improvement on a Christian Constitutional Monarchy.

2. The appropriateness and/or desirability of the changes made to existing law or practice -

(a) whether or not the change is in the form of a redraft, repeal or relocation of an existing provision(s); or

(b) whether or not the change appears intended or inadvertent.

Removing all references to "Queen" and "Her Majesty" is totally inappropriate and utterly undesirable.

This is not a minor change. It is a major change, and it is intended. Substituting the title 'Sovereign' paves the way for a republican head of state. A dictionary meaning of "sovereign" is "a person, a ruler or a governing body in whom supreme power has been vested." Usually this is done by some type of popular election. A "Monarch" is defined as "an hereditary ruler." An hereditary ruler is above politics, for his authority comes directly from God, not man.

Making the change to 'sovereign' affects the heart of the Constitution, and it also puts at risk Queensland's inheritance of Britain's Bill of Rights, Magna Carta and other Imperial Acts. Considering the many recent calls for a 'Queensland Bill of Rights', despite the fact that we already have one, it is obvious that, in addition to getting rid of the Queen, the pro-republicans also want to get rid of our historic Bible-based Bill of Rights of 1688/9, so they can substitute a useless ungodly UN Bill of Rights that actually makes loss of rights possible.

Since the passing of the Australia Act, it is now said that Her Majesty can exercise any of Her normal powers and functions when personally present in the State, (provided there has been mutual and prior agreement with the Premier!) However all these Australia Act changes have made the Queen of Queensland a figurehead only, which considerably furthers the republican cause to change 'Queen' and 'Her Majesty' to 'Sovereign'.

It is quoted in s.3.1.1 of the Interim Report that EARC "notes that no substantive effort has been made to review and consolidate this important legislation since 1867. This necessary review and consolidation of parliamentary legislation is long overdue." Why this desperate push to mend something that isn't broken? If there has been no call for a review in 130 years, it has obviously served us well, so why should politicians interfere with it?

As Sir William also said: "No popular demand exists for changes to be made to the Constitution that operates in this nation. No great desire for change to the Constitution is afoot now. . . at this time there is no popular movement to effect changes of any major consequence to the Constitution. The socialist manipulators are anxious to find a way of getting round that problem . . " The secret passing of the Australia Act gave them some success in this area, and now so has this current committee's exercise in rewriting the entire Constitution.

Sir William also warned of the real possibility that a Federal Government could become centralist by advising Her Majesty to appoint a viceroy, as distinct from a vice-regal representative. He suggested a Viceroy might be said to so fully represent Her Majesty that She could be said to be personally present in the State (Clause 7(4) of the Australia Act), and that this might then allow the viceroy, rather than the governor, to exercise all of Her Majesty's powers and functions in relation to both Commonwealth and State, thus destroying State autonomy.

Australian Citizens are to be Protected by Unchangeable Laws that Control Rulers/Governments:

Because of the unlawful passing of the Australia Act, Her Majesty is now said to be unable to disallow an Act which Parliament may have passed dictatorially or unconstitutionally, neither can the Governor now protect the people against bad laws. The benefit of a Monarch to prevent oppression has been quietly and illegally removed.

Each Australian State has individually reaffirmed the continual application forever of the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, Habeas Corpus, etc., by enacting its own special 'Imperial Acts Application Act' (Queensland's Act was passed in 1984, just a year before the Australia Acts (Request) Bill was brought into Parliament.)

It is the Governor's duty to uphold these Imperial Acts, protect our rights under the Bill of Rights 1688 and Magna Carta, etc., and protect the Constitution as it was, including our right to remain a Christian nation.

Under the State Constitution as it was (and legally still is according to Section 53) the Governor had total power to protect the people from an oppressive or unruly Parliament. That he did not often use his power is no reason to prevent him from having the power for emergencies. I have a copy of a very early constitution, and Vol.II, Clause 2.7.VI states that the Governor was not bound to take advice from the Executive Council, but if he thought fit to dissent from the opinion of the said Council, he could act in opposition to their advice, and then report back to the Queen. Research is needed to discover if this vice-regal power was removed illegally.

Our Queen's own Coronation Oath (wherein she vowed to uphold forever the Laws of God, the Gospel of Christ, and the Laws of the Land), together with the supportive Oaths of Allegiance sworn by every member of Parliament, the Judiciary, the Police, etc., give legal protection to the people of this Monarchy to ensure their continued freedom under God. In comparison, no Human Rights Bill is 'worth the paper it is written on'.

Neither the Queen's Oath, nor the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty sworn by our State Parliamentarians, and others, can be lawfully set aside or made of no account, at any time or for any reason. Those who have broken their Oaths of Allegiance to God and the Queen, have committed a crime, and by stirring up disaffection for the Queen and the Constitution (another offence under the Criminal Code), they have acted treacherously, and have unlawfully discarded the civil duty required of parliamentarians and citizens, under our Constitutions.

Sections 51(xxv), 106, 108 and 118 of Australia's Commonwealth Constitution protect the State Constitutions and the laws of the States as at Federation. Constitutions, guaranteed Laws of the Land, and Oaths of Allegiance are for protecting citizens, by controlling the kings, governments, and other ruling authorities. In conflict with these Sections, the Commonwealth Parliament was party to interfering with our State Constitution.

Contrary to all these 'people-friendly' rules, the powerful elite in this country and overseas are operating according to a hidden agenda. Their modus operandi is that of Fabian Socialism (gradualism). The politically powerful have been victimizing Australians for some considerable time now, and gradually preparing our States to be future republics. They have deceived the people gradually until eventually "a new public mind has been created" (to use the words of American educator, Dr.Harold Rugg, speaking of schooling). This culminated in the secret unlawful changing of the roles of the Queen and the Governor by the invalid Australia Acts which were quietly passed in 1985-1986 without the required referenda in Queensland and Western Australia.

THEREFORE: It is, in my opinion, entirely inappropriate and undesirable for LCARC to perpetuate existing defects and encourage the continuation of the 'hidden agenda' by this consolidation and rewriting exercise.

Most, if not all, of the new changes being proposed are not appropriate nor desirable either, as I have tried to make clear in the above comments, because they also breach Section 53. Removing all references to "Queen" and "Her Majesty" is a major and totally unacceptable change. These unauthorized changes make the passing of the Constitution Bill impossible, and if enacted it would be null and void forever.

Many of the changes, in my opinion, amount to much more than inappropriateness. I consider them to be rather 'seditious intentions' and 'seditious enterprises', as described in the Criminal Code (Section 44).

I have shown that through the arrogant use of the invalid Australia Act 1986 (Ss. 7 to 11 of the First Schedule), every means originally included in the Constitution specifically to enable the Queen or Governor to protect Her Majesty's Queensland citizens has been illegally removed, contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

If LCARC retained these words it would acknowledge that Queensland is a Monarchy, and we are loyal citizens of the Realm of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Substituting "Sovereign" is a major change of title, facilitating future major "stylistic amendments of the Constitution Act that would pave the way for bringing in a republic, because "Sovereign" will apply equally well to a President, a dictator, or any other strangely-arrived-at republican Head of State.

On the other hand, a "Monarch" is "an hereditary ruler", which means our Queen is above politics, for Her authority comes directly from God, not man, and the position of monarch is never vacant.

3. The comprehensiveness of the consolidation exercise; namely, other existing provisions that have not been
included in the Bills but might have been.

Provisions removed from our Constitution by the unlawful Australia Act, which should now be restored.

This consolidation exercise will be totally lacking in comprehensiveness if no attempt is made to rectify the unlawful changes brought about by Queensland's Australia Acts (Request) Act which unlawfully enabled the Federal and Imperial Australia Acts to be passed, and the entrenched Sections 2, 11A, 11B and 14 in our Constitution to be altered or repealed - against both the letter and spirit of the entrenching sections.

The Bill of Rights gives subjects the right to petition the Queen. The Australia Act is illegal because it has taken away our petitioning rights, which no one is lawfully allowed to do. These invalid changes brought about by the forever null and void Australia Act (see Sec.53) are now being used to claim falsely that the Queen and the Governor have such vastly reduced roles, as to be insignificant and irrelevant in any rewritten Queensland Constitution. I refute this entirely and ask that this be rectified and appeals to the Privy Council be restored..

Sec. 2 Legislative Assembly Constituted. In conflict with this section, the Request Act made provision for extra-territorial law-making by the States. This needs to be redressed before Queensland becomes victim to it.

Sec.11A(2). Office of Governor: No alteration in the office of Governor is to be brought about through any Act of the Parliament except after the people have had their say. The Premier of the day, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, boasted that, through passing the Australia Acts (Request) Act, his government had been responsible for strengthening (i.e. for changing in some way) the office of Governor. Tampering with the role of Governor by any means is forbidden, but the Premier admitted the Request Act did change it.

Sec.11B(1). Governor to conform to instructions: This was changed so extensively that the Governor is no longer allowed to take instructions from the Queen. Instead he must be advised by the Premier (which the Premier told Parliament in 1976 could never happen). The laws relating to assenting, dissenting, or reserving for Her Majesty are repealed , yet Sec.53 says such an unauthorized Bill is forever of no effect as an Act.

Section 14: Appointment to Offices under the Government, etc. The role of Governor was again altered.

Sections 2, 11A 11B and 14: The consolidation exercise will lack comprehensiveness and be waste of public funds, if no attempt is made to restore what has been deleted or altered , especially Ss. 2, 11A and 11B.

Clauses 7 - 11 (Part II, p5 & Constitution Act, p.10), explaining our democratic system of representation say nothing about the Constitutional requirement that the Monarch call to parliament men who represent, NOT SOME UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLITICAL PARTY, but the people of their own electoral division of city, village, hamlet, etc. A true review should note that fact and question and rectify the tyranny of the unconsti-tutional political party monopoly that is not allowing our Constitution to work as intended. Most politicians are more loyal to their Party than to the Constitution or their Oath of Allegiance to the Queen and to God.

THEREFORE: I am very concerned that nothing in the consolidation exercise makes any attempt to reverse the damaging effects of the Australia Acts (Request) Act which was the responsibility of an earlier Queensland Parliament, but rather perpetuates them. I believe the committee (LCARC) should declare that the Australia Acts (Request) Act is null and void, and also the Australia Act that resulted from the unlawful process [See appendix]. It needs to be shown that Parliament acted out of misplaced power, and not with the requisite authority from the people. The next step is to reinstate the true roles of Queen and Governor, for the protection of citizens' rights, together with the entire extensive Preambles to the Constitution Act 1867 and the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934, which are listed as about to be repealed. Probably it is because they refer to the true role of Governor.. These Preambles are an extremely important part of our national heritage. They also have significance in Court cases, and must not be lost. The original framers of the Constitution were loyal trustworthy men; who served us well and stood the test of time.

Vital parts of the Constitution must be restored, or committee members may be found to be accessories after the fact of treachery and sedition. Rewriting the constitution is the chance to correctly present the true democratic system of parliamentary representation as originally practised - before being corrupted by the unconstitutional Party system. Restore representation to the people rather than having it usurped by the political parties.

Because I treasure our Constitution as it should be, I am compelled to lodge this submission in defence of it.

4. How clauses are expressed, for example, whether the replacement of archaic phrases with 'plain English' equivalents is inappropriate or might prove problematic;

The language of the constitution as first written is more precise, and more grammatically and legally correct, than the proposed modernization appears to be. The reason for preciseness, correct grammar and legal jargon it is not so easily misconstrued, and can be more easily legally interpreted. The precise wording has stood the test of time as to its interpretation. In earlier years, children of my era were taught English correctly and thoroughly, so had no difficulty in understanding legally written documents such as these. The fault lies NOT with the Constitution Acts, etc., but entirely with the faulty present-day education system that is apparently no longer capable of teaching English Grammar and sentence construction, so that people can communicate adequately on all levels.

THEREFORE: I do not agree with the replacement of so-called 'archaic phrases' with 'plain English'. There is little, if any advantage in doing so, and the result would probably prove very problematic in many ways.

5. How well clauses dealing with particular constitution areas (e.g. revenue, the judiciary, the Governor, members' disqualifications, etc.) interrelate.

No comment is available on this at this time.

6. Any issues suggested by the explanatory notes to the Bills, for example, where the notes indicate where the
committee has made, or had considered making, changes that might be considered substantial.

This has been dealt with in the other parts of this submission.

7. The structure of the Bills and their parts.

No comment is available on this at this time.

8. In the light of the fact that the following two areas represent substantial changes to the law, specifically:

(a) the appropriateness and/or desirability of the provisions relating to the judiciary contained in chapter 4 (Courts) of the Constitution of Queensland Bill; and
(b) the appropriateness and/or desirability of the provisions relating to the qualification and disqualification of Parliamentary candidates and members of the Assembly contained in chapter 5 (Candidates and members) of the Parliament of Queensland Bill.

I am sorry I have not the time to prepare my response to this important question.

9. Any other matter, such as additional matters that were referred to the committee's consultant (listed in s.1.4.5 above.)

This has been dealt with in other parts of the submission also, at least as far as I have been able to do research.

CONCLUSION:

The ultimate object of this Submission is to seek, through LCARC's consolidation and rewriting exercise, the restoration of our Constitution to its former state, when it really did have power and glory, before the Australia Act stripped it of its benevolent value to Queensland citizens.

The basis of our Freedom: The Australian Colonies were established as Constitutional Monarchies under God and the Crown, our liberty under God being guaranteed by the Monarch's pre-Coronation Oath and pre-Coronation signature showing agreement to be bound forever by such unchangeable laws as Magna Carta, 1215, the Bill of Rights, 1688, Habeas Corpus Act, etc.

Care had been taken over the years to ensure the benevolent British links and safeguards of our State Consti-tution remained intact. On 16/10/85, Parliament enacted the Australia Acts (Request) Bill, without the necessary referendum. This removed citizens' rights and voted politicians more power.

Under Part A, Issue No.1, perceived defects caused by the passing of the Australia Acts (Request) Act were shown to have come about because Parliament chose to make a calculated power grab rather than to act under authority of the people. Unfortunately, it is clear LCARC is adopting the same method, and could be partakers in a seditious enterprise. Passing this Bill into law turned Queensland into a virtual republic:

a) by removing from the Queen and the Governor their power to protect citizens from oppressive governments -

• 1. No more laws may be refused assent by the Governor;

• 2. No more laws may be reserved for the signification of the Queen's pleasure;

• 3. No more laws may be disallowed by appeal to the Queen;

• 4. No more appeals may be made to the Queen.

b) by making the Queen and Governor rubber-stamps for the State, for example -

• 1. The Premier advises the Queen on appointment and dismissal of the Governor;

• 2. The Premier advises the Queen on the exercise of her powers and functions.

These drastic changes to entrenched Ss. 2, 11A, 11B and 14 were brought about undeniably by the Queensland Parliament through passing the Schedule to the Request Act, for which Parliament had received no authority from the people. Therefore Section 53 of the Constitution applies, and the resultant Act is null and void, and so is the Australia Act itself, because it relied on a null and void Act from Queensland.

Under Part A, Issue No.2, perceived defects caused by the new proposed Constitution are also of great concern also. LCARC perpetuates these unlawful Australia Act changes, and even repeats the offence by again breaching Section 53. Entrenched Secs.1, 2 and 2A were amended, also without authority - even the words "Queen" and "Her Majesty" were removed from the Constitution and substituted by the title "Sovereign". Thus the proposed Constitution cannot be lawful unless a referendum is first held, and the Queen assents to the Bill.

Doing anything to attempt to alter the role or title of the Queen or Governor displays disloyalty and incites disaffection towards, not only the Constitution, but also the Monarch to whom all citizens owe allegiance. Criminal Code Sec.44 defines this as seditious intention. LCARC members, in consolidating the Queensland Constitution, may thereby put themselves in the predicament of knowingly being partakers in a seditious enterprise. It is not as though they are meeting a public outcry for a consolidated, rewritten Constitution.

I posed two questions on page 2, and made a request to have these questions dealt with by LCARC, since they embody my greatest concern with perceived defects in the proposed Constitution:-

• (1) Should LCARC perpetuate these unauthorized null and void changes to our Constitution?

• (2) Should LCARC excite disaffection against the Constitution and Her Majesty (Criminal Code s.44)?

(3) We request that LCARC deal with these questions when reporting to Parliament:

Under Part A, Issue No.3, six questions asked by thinking people require answers to justify what is being done by Parliamentarians who are meant to represent the people, not political parties. Why is the Government so determined not to give the people their say, as is their right?

Under Part B, The Law of God and the Gospel of Christ is the Basis of our Constitution, I quoted Sir Robert Menzies, George Washington and the American Supreme Court out of the multitude that have testified that history proves the Bible right when God promises "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD."

Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, (Lib.) said:

• "When we in Australia come to discuss civil and political rights, it is necessary to remember that one of the functions of the common law, devised over a course of centuries in England and adopted by us by inheritance, has been to protect the individual against personal infringement of his personal rights. . . . To live in a common law country is in itself the very best guarantee of the rights of the individual. . ."

The Constitution is the guarantee that we in Australia will be protected by the Monarch's Coronation Oath which includes Her personal obligation (and that of Her heirs and successors) to uphold and protect forever the rights and freedoms of all the people of Her Realm and their descendants, as is guaranteed in Magna Carta 1215-1297 and the Bill of Rights of 1688/9.

This historic Bill is recognized as the legal protection for Parliamentary debate, as well as the legal protection of the citizen's right to be armed to protect himself, his family and others. (See Imperial Acts Interpretation Act)

Various entrenched sections of the constitution protect our citizens against would-be dictators in government, e.g. Sections1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B and 53. Therefore our Constitution should remain under the Crown and continue to be emphatically Christian.

In Queensland, as in America, it is true to say "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

Under Part C, My Response to "What to Address in Public Submissions", I have given my comments to four of the nine LCARC requests. Lack of time prevented any more research and opinions.

In view of the above, I believe it is most unsafe to risk more defects entering the Constitution through rewriting it, especially considering the undisguised lack of loyalty to Crown and Constitution on the part of many who are most closely involved in the consolidating process. The whole exercise allows and encourages pro-republicans to offend against the Crimes Act and Criminal Code in the matter of treason, treachery, and sedition

Errors and defects through alteration tend to lessen our title to British Common Law which is the key to our retaining individual liberty. Power over the Constitution is ours. This is our birthright, and that of our children. It lies not in the hands of the elite, Parliamentarians, bureaucrats, etc., but in the people, by referendum, and yet in the new proposed consolidated Constitution, changes have been made to these entrenched sections without mention of any intention to hold a referendum:

            1. Legislative Assembly. There shall be within the said Colony of Queensland a Legislative Assembly.

            2. Legislative Assembly constituted. Within the said Colony of Queensland Her Majesty shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the said Assembly to make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of the colony in all cases whatsoever.

Further evidence can be made available if required.

Mrs. Rona Joyner,      P.O.Box 350,      Kallangur, 4503.      Phone 3888.1450.      Dated 9/10/98

Contents of Appendices

Appendix 1 = Magazine 'STOP PRESS' Vol.15, No.1 with Supplement and enclosures

Appendix 2 = 3 Letters to the Attorney-General

Appendix 3 = 1 Letter to Her Majesty, the Queen

Appendix 4 = 1 Letter to His Excellency, the Governor

Appendix 5 = "Call It Treason" (booklet published by
First & Last Discussion Papers, Sydney, NSW.

[These Appendices are part of the Submission from Mrs. Rona Joyner,

P.O. Box 350, Kallangur, 4503

to the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, at Parliament House.

Covering Letter to Submission

9th October, 1998.

The Research Director,
Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee,
Parliament House, George St.,
BRISBANE.

Dear Ms.Newton,

My copy of this Interim Report arrived in my hands on 25th September, 1998, the closing date for submissions. I received from you on 2nd October my copy of the Committee's Comparative Table which compares LCARC's Draft Constitution of Queensland Act 1998 with Existing Law and EARC's Draft Queensland Constitution Act 1993. Since I wished to address some important issues arising from these two documents, I asked for an extension of time for lodgment of this Submission, and thank you for granting me extra time.

This submission is on behalf of the three organizations named above, all of which have similar concerns about the need to maintain and defend our Christian Constitutional Monarchy, both at State and Federal level.

The Constitution does not belong to politicians, but to the people. Because I treasure our Constitution, I have been compelled to lodge this submission as a practical way of fighting for it on behalf of loyal Queenslanders.

In the short time available I will not be able to address all the issues, and wonder if there is any way in which extra comments could be added later.

Thank you very much for allowing me this extension of time.

Yours faithfully,

signed RJ

Visits since 13/10/99: