Best to Vote NO NO in NOvember's Referendum

if you are AGAINST just ONE of the proposed 74 Constitutional Changes.

If There is Just ONE Statement in the Law for a New Preamble

That Could Cause Legal Trouble and Loss of Title Deeds and Land Ownership

You Should Vote "NO"and not authorize the inclusion of a Preamble.

In this Referendum the electors will be asked "Do you approve of this proposed alteration?" The alteration is defined in the long title at the beginning of the Bill, but the wording given is misleading because of what it omits. We are not told in that title anything about the dictatorial powers given to the Prime Minister in both the selecting and appointing of the President and in the dismissal process. These Prime Ministerial powers are so great as to make the way we will be governed in the future a totally different 'kettle of fish' from the way we have been governed in the past under our Constitutional Monarchy. I will itemize as many of these flaws as space permits.

Having to Decide on 74 Changes as One Change

The first flaw in anything totalitarian is that the people are NOT given a chance to vote on issues one at a time, so that they can decide to approve of one item and disapprove of another. By voting "Yes" or "No" in this Referendum you are being asked to decide to approve or disapprove of a block of seventy-four (74) alterations to the Constitution, as though it were only one change. Some of these changes give extraordinary powers to all future Prime Ministers in this proposed republic, dangerous powers that will put good government at great risk.

You cannot vote, one by one, for these changes to the way our country will be governed in the future. It has to be ALL or NONE, IN ONE VOTE. Therefore, if you disagree with ANY of the changes, like those that give the Prime Minister total dictatorial power over the President, and therefore over the entire executive business of government, or you don't fully understand any of the Bill, you should throw it out entirely. Do NOT give your approval to something that is flawed in the most important and basic of principles - the right to agree or disagree with each change on its merit. Be on the safe side - Keep what you know is serving us well. Vote "NO" to the whole dangerous thing.

Left, Right or Centre?

What I like about our very own Constitutional Monarchy is that it is in the middle, at the very centre, of the political spectrum., neither left nor right. It is constitutionally fixed on The Law of God, which is central to good government in any country. When God gave Moses the commandments, statutes and judgments by which Moses was to govern the new nation of Israel, God encouraged him to cling to what is central to good government, when He said:

"You shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God has commanded you: You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left."

We should note that both left and right wing politics put us under bondage to man, with no protection from oppression. Only at the centre, under His laws, do we find liberty under God, and protection from totalitarian political interference in our lives. God says, "Don't turn to left, nor right, but stay in the centre where God's laws are a testimony against the wickedness of men."

More Power to Politicians by Changing the Constitution

Clause 1 of the Bill: Political power in Parliament is what this Referendum is all about. It is not surprising, therefore, that the first section to be repealed by Clause 1 of the Bill is Section 59, which gives the Queen the power to refuse to assent to any bad law submitted by Parliament for Her signature, particularly if that law were in breach of the Constitution or of the great Charters of English liberty - Magna Carta, our 1689 Bill of Rights, or the Habeas Corpus Act, etc. "Getting rid of Section 59" has been a hot topic at all the Republican meetings, conventions, etc, that I have attended

If this referendum is lost, and we retain our Constitution as it is, this Section 59 will still be there to ensure that the Queen can protect the rights of Her subjects by not giving Royal Assent to this badly flawed Bill, this Parliamentary monstrosity! For this we should be truly thankful. If we become a republic, this protection goes. Admittedly, the President will inherit the same power of dissent, but what is the value of it, when the President, unlike a Governor-General, is subservient to the Prime Minister, and will have to agree to whatever he wants.

Clause 3 of the Bill: This clause repeals the sections relating to the executive power vested in the Queen and exercised by the Governor-General, and substitutes a new Section 59 vesting power in the President. However, in view of the power to be given to the Prime Minister, through the new Section 60, in selecting, appointing and dismissing the President, the President's vested powers and reserve powers give him very much less real power than is constitutionally exercised by a Governor-General.

As an outcome of the new Section 60, there is another Bill waiting in the wings but not requiring the approval of electors. It is called the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 1999, and it gives all the detail that is to be implemented in regard to the selecting, and appointing of the President, if and after a "Yes" referendum allows the setting up of a republic. So in effect, people are being asked to vote on a referendum question, without knowing the full story behind it. Another flaw!

The Attorney-General (Mr. Daryl Williams) is recorded in Hansard as having said that this Nominations Bill "provides the means by which the Australian people can be involved in selecting a President." In actual fact, however, we can discover from the details in this Bill that there is no guarantee that the public will have any involvement at all in the selection of the President. Again, all power is in the hands of the Prime Minister, even to the extent that he could put forward, as his required single nomination to the joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament, his own chosen candidate, and no other name submitted by the members of the public need even be considered. Correct me, if I am wrong, but that is what I have gleaned from this Bill.

All nominations under this Bill must be kept confidential forever, so it will never be disclosed if the name put forward by the Prime Minister was nominated by anyone but himself. The only drawback for the Prime Minister is that his nomination must be seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and agreed to by a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. With a bit of horse-trading, collusion, or whatever, I daresay that that problem would be soon solved.

In the new Section 61 inserted by Clause 3, much is said about the term of office of the President, which shows that ultimately the term is not five years. It fact the President has an indefinite term, determined only by death, resignation, or dismissal .

In the new Section 62 'Removal of President', the Prime Minister is given absolute power to remove the President immediately. . No grounds for removal are given, but it is stated that the Prime Minister must apply for House of Representatives approval of his action. That is simply 'window-dressing' because the last sentence of that section says without doubt or condition: that a President once removed cannot be reinstated.

Clause 5 of the Bill: This inserts the new Oath of Allegiance for members of Parliament and the new Oath of Office for the President. These Oaths have the hallmark of the Oath of Allegiance that Hitler forced on the German people after he had taken over from the Kaiser. At first allegiance was sworn to "Germany". Later the Oath of Allegiance was sworn to Hitler himself.

These new Oaths in Clause 5 also give loyalty to an impersonal concept, not to Germany in our case, but to the "Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian people, whose laws I will uphold." Which laws of the Australian people have to be upheld? Anyone can campaign to change Parliamentary laws. The only laws that our present Oath of Allegiance binds us to uphold are the Laws of the Land, the laws of God and the Imperial Acts (Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, etc.). I doubt that this new Oath is seeking to continue our allegiance to these inherited Charters of English Liberty, as recorded in history. But if this new Oath is not upholding these inherited laws, then this is indeed indicative of a Parliamentary revolt against God, Queen and country (i.e. against the very people to whom the Oath says our M.Ps will pledge their loyalty.)

Parliament's Revolt Against God, Queen and Country

"I love my God, I honour my Queen, and I salute my Flag" (the flag being the symbol of the Country and its people). These were the words and the spirit that introduced every day of most of my school life, and I am still an Australian Loyal to God, Crown and Constitution. How could I possibly join in this awful, unlawful, Parliamentary revolt against God, the Crown, the Constitution and the People? It is primarily a revolt against Christ, the King, and against His servant, the Queen. This is an end-time fulfilment of the revolts Christ prophesied - first in the political life of the Jewish nation in the beginning of the Christian era, and now in the political life of many countries including the Australian nation towards the end of the Christian era.

"But his citizens hated Him, and sent a message after Him, saying, We will not have this Man to reign over us." (Luke 19.14) "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay before me." (Luke 19.27)

Verse 14 refers to the Jews' prolonged rejection of Christ, both before and after He had ascended to His throne in heaven. Note "We have no king but Caesar." (John 19.15)., and "Write not, The King of the Jews." (John 19.21). Verse 14 refers just as much to the fact that Christian Australians have done nothing to prevent our Parliamentary representatives from promoting "anarchy", "democracy", or a republic "dictatorship" - anything but the rule of Christ. We are allowing them to say 'We will not have this Man to reign over us' as they openly and happily reject Christ's principles of right and wrong in the governing of this land.

Verse 27 foreshadows the destruction of Jerusalem, but it also pictures to us the terrible doom of all those Australians who condone Parliament's rejection of Christ as King in these last days, refusing to have Him to reign over us through God's Laws.

1. The Republican Bill shows this is a revolt by Parliament against the people, a revolt that will see the Australian people as absolute losers and the politicians as absolute winners. The Prime Minister is given ncredible unfettered dictatorial POWER.

2. It is illegal to promote an uprising against the Constitution, in order to bring in a godless republic by deposing the Queen who, through Her Coronation Oath, is the only legal custodian of the Law of God in this Land.

3. With Section 59 repealed, the people have no way of forcing Parliament to reverse bad or repressive laws.

4. Native-born Australians owe a natural duty of allegiance because they benefit from rights of citizenship. How much more so, the thousands who have personally, verbally and voluntarily taken that Oath, either to become naturalized citizens, or to proclaim their loyalty to the Crown prior to taking their seat in Parliament. To vow allegiance and break it is a serious crime.

Australians Loyal to Crown & Constitution, c/-Mrs Rona Joyner

Click for details of public meetings. Arthur Tuck outlines some Important points to Consider before you vote. Patriotic Round Table Alliance asks us to beware any attempted change to a republic. If you wish to see why other people are advocating a 'No' vote, Michael Darby maintains a page of links to other Australian Monarchist websites.

Please Vote NO to the changes to be made by the
"Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999".

Authorized & Published by S. Joyner,McPhail Rd, Narangba 4504.

Visits since 12/10/99: