CHAPTER TWO - IDEOLOGIES BEHIND THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION

(Written in January 2001
The first of five Chapters on the Australian Constitution.)

On the 1st January 2001, the Governor-General, Sir William Deane¹⁴⁷, with the Prime Minister, John Howard³⁸⁵, and all State governors and premiers gathered together at Centennial Park in Sydney to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the signing of the union of the former Australian colonies into Federation.

Despoiling the unity of the occasion were republicans telling us that we should rather be celebrating a republic and aboriginal activists rejecting the viability of our democracy and branding the Constitution as a racist document.

The words of the Governor-General on the 1st January 2001, Pride in the commitment to Democracy under the rule of law,¹⁴⁸ whilst sounding warm and cosy failed to encapsulate what Federation was all about. Indeed not one of the speakers, including the Governor-General and the Prime Minister, at any time mentioned the very essence of our Constitutional Monarchy - which is, of course, the Crown.

In accepting the tenet of Westminster we must also accept the ‘ten commandments²⁵⁵’ of Alfred the Great'¹⁴⁹, the Liberties of England which include the Magna Carta¹⁵⁰, the Bill of Rights¹⁵¹ and the Act of Settlement⁵⁰⁰, the Coronation Oath¹⁵³, the Common Law¹⁵⁴ and the various Statutes that combined make our Constitution the greatest protector of democracy known in this world to date. As Churchill¹⁵⁵ has said it is the worst form of government - except for all others⁷⁸⁸. It may well be that future generations will develop some sort of system which is ideal. However, a republic is a retrograde step. Under our Constitutional Monarchy, the Crown is enshrined within our Westminster system¹⁵⁶; but in a republic the concept of the Crown is totally removed and replaced by the humanist politician. By removing the Crown, we remove the guidance of the Almighty and any association with Christian belief in the direction of our constitutional life and we replace it with the humanist ambitions - political and personal - of the individual.

As I have often said (and have never once been proven incorrect), there is no former British colony which having accepted Westminster but removed the Crown, has survived as a true democracy for it is only the Crown which protects the interests of the people against the aspirations of the politician. For years members of the legal fraternity have attempted to indoctrinate us with the idea that our Constitution is under what they term ‘the separate Crown of Australia’, and that we can exist without the Crown of the United Kingdom. The fact is that there is no such legal entity as the ‘Crown of Australia’ (this is only implied by the Royal Style and Titles Acts of 1954 and 1974).  It is true that from the first time the Australian Parliament met under the new Constitution in 1901, Australia became totally independent from influence by the British Government and, whilst the Australian Government did continue for some decades to accept instructions from the British Government, they need not have done so. This independent status was acknowledged in the Statute of Westminster of 1931, enacted by the Australian Parliament in 1942. However, whilst Australia is totally independent from the British Parliament and Government, our Constitution is under the Crown of the United Kingdom and our Monarchy is vested in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.  Therefore to say that we have nothing to do with the Crown of the United Kingdom and all that that Christian Crown entails, is nothing less than absurd.

If  you are a Christian, you do not pick and choose from the teachings of Christ, accepting those you want and rejecting others. Similarly, you cannot have Westminster without accepting the myriad of laws, of conventions and of implementations that make up the Westminster system which protects our freedom and our democracy today. We often hear people talking about their ‘rights’, but one cannot have ‘rights’ without ‘responsibilities’.

We, in Australia, live in one of the greatest and oldest continuing democracies in the world¹⁵⁷ and, even with the manoeuvrings of certain politicians and our two party system designed, it would seem, to frustrate our constitutional safeguards, we are, nevertheless, the best.

However, we cannot just accept the benefits of our Constitutional Monarchy without accepting the responsibilities that go with it. Responsibilities such as allegiance to the Crown and honouring and respecting the Queen’s Majesty.

The theme of the Centenary committee¹⁵⁸, pervading even their advertisements, appears to project the message that Federation was solely the brain child of Sir Henry Parkes¹⁵⁹. In their anti-British bias they purposefully omit the part that the British colonial office played in encouraging the States to unite.

The truth is that union between the States was being promoted long before Parkes entered the political arena. Indeed just four years after Parkes arrived in Australia in 1839 with his wife and newborn child as ‘bounty immigrants’¹⁵⁸ the then Colonial Secretary E D Thomson¹⁶⁰ sought to establish a uniform law amongst the States.

Others around the time, including the Victorians Duffy¹⁶¹ and Service¹⁶², were promoting actual federalism. However, it was the British Colonial Secretary, Earl Grey¹⁶³ who suggested, in 1847, that some kind of central body be established to co-operate on such matters as communications and customs.

Parkes entered parliament in 1854, but it was not until 1867 that he first took up the cause of a federal council when colonial secretary, but when a Council was established in 1885, he decided to reject the concept and advocated instead total union.

The catalyst for union, however, lies in the report by Major-General Sir Bevan Edwards¹⁶⁴, which was presented to all six colonies in 1889 highlighting the weakness of their individual military establishments against possible attack particularly by the increasingly aggressive German empire - and recommended federating the separate armed forces, Parkes took up the initiative and called for a national convention, beginning the series of conferences which eventually led to Federation.

Whilst his now famous and indeed inspiring address at Tenterfield¹⁶⁵ in 1889 aroused support,  whilst it is also true that he died before being able to consolidate that support so that it was left to the Melbourne based Australian Natives’ Association¹⁶⁶ to sponsor a meeting of representatives at Corowa¹⁶⁷ in 1893 in order to resurrect the active moves towards Federation.

Contemporaries of Parkes knew him and his politicking only too well - which is why, I believe, he was never adopted by the Founding Fathers⁸³⁷ as an honorary member.

If anything Parkes could be called a ‘grandfather’ of Federation. He was not the father and it is wrong to eulogise him as such whilst ignoring the greater efforts of such selfless people as Barton¹⁷¹, Clark¹⁶⁹, Deakin¹⁶⁸ and Griffith¹⁷⁰.

It was Barton who coined the phrase For the first time in history, we have a nation for a Continent, and a Continent for a Nation⁷³⁸, addressing some three hundred meetings in New South Wales within a period of four years!

Whilst, amidst the wild and extravagant festivities of the Centenary, there have been articles in the newspapers mentioning bits and pieces about Federation, very few have actually gone into detail of why we federated, and what it meant for the then known world.

Partial representative government was granted to New South Wales by the Constitution Act of  1842¹⁷² with responsible government eventuating in 1855.  Due to the enormous distances involved¹⁷¹, the remaining five colonies, whilst all fragmenting from New South Wales as various parts of Australia were settled, were formed as autonomous entities each with its sovereign constitutions and governments including individual laws and taxes.

As the States developed, the issues of state sovereignty and particularly the duties levied upon goods transported from one state to another, became a matter of great concern. However, the absence of a central authority also meant that there was no coordinated defence system to protect the Australian shores. In past years this had not really been of concern for since the collapse of the French as a colonizing force, there had been no enemy sufficiently strong enough to pose a threat to the British Empire.

As the century drew to a close the increasingly militaristic German Empire, however, was giving signs of support to the Boers and there were concerns, albeit somewhat slight, that Germany would enter the conflict on their side. Of greater concern were German interests in New Guinea and their possible designs on expansion.

In 1899 Britain declared war on the Boers¹⁷⁴ and the Australian States committed troops to fight in South Africa. At the time of Federation the Boer War was still continuing and it is interesting to note that it was just thirteen years following Federation that the first shot fired by Empire forces in the Great War was from Fort Nepean at Port Phillip Heads in Victoria on August 5 1914¹⁷⁵

So the fears that led to Federation were very real fears indeed. Today one can only wonder what might have happened had we not been federated and had not our defence fallen under a single Commonwealth jurisdiction.

Despite living in the world’s leading democracy, many Australians remain entrenched in their own prejudices. Much is made of the fact that the franchise at the time of Federation was limited with women and aborigines refused the vote conveniently overlooking the fact that South Australia was the first colony within the British Empire to give women franchise equal to men!¹⁷⁶ It is very easy for people today to criticize with hindsight; but when considering the times and conditions of a hundred years ago, it is clear to see that Australia was far in advance of the rest of the world.

And whilst we still face a fight against what many call the inadequacies within our population the fact is that every elector in this country, of whatever race, colour or religion, voted in the 1999 Constitutional Referendum¹⁷⁷ and participating in the decision which decided to retain our Constitutional Monarchy and yet there are those who will not accept that decision and still agitate to tear down the very structure of our democracy. Are they not behaving in a most undemocratic measure and actually proving to us that the sort of republic they mean us to have is one which suits only their own individual prejudices at this rejection of the will of a people as a whole.

THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE DRAFTING OF OUR CONSTITUTION

Republicans claim that the American Declaration of Independence of 1776¹⁷⁸ was the first peaceable attempt to withdraw from a ruling power (although the Lexington¹⁷⁹ and open civil war preceded the Declaration by 14 months). However, little has ever been written about the rationale which motivated the Founding Fathers⁸³⁷ of our constitution.

It was following the 1891 Convention in Sydney that Samuel Griffith, Inglis Clark¹⁶⁹ and Charles Cameron Kingston¹⁸⁰ met to discuss the proposed Constitution. A serious bout of influenza prevented Clark from joining the epic voyage on the ‘Lucinda’¹⁸¹, where Griffith, Kingston and Barton worked over the Easter weekend on Clark’s draft, presenting the first formal draft of a new constitution to the Government Printer on Easter Sunday, the 29th March 1891.

Eighty six sections from Clark’s original draft, albeit most in the lucid writing of Griffith, are present in the document which became the Australian Constitution on the 1st January 1901.

Inglis Clark was an American style republican who despised the Monarchy. Although his draft gave executive authority to the Queen through her representative the Governor-General, he considered this simply to be an interim stage before Australia severed links with the British Crown and became a republic.

Clark was enamoured of the varying socialist philosophies prevalent during the latter part of the 19th century. As well as being a devotee of Joseph Mazzini¹⁸², the 19th century European philosopher who had once written Progress is the consciousness of progress. Man must attain it step by step, by the sweat of his brow_. He was also a disciple of Jefferson¹⁸³ and eulogised those principles which led to the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

Others like Deakin, also sought to produce a document which was relevant to a new country born into the new Century. Whilst Deakin was not a republican, he was what may be termed a quasi Socialist. His interests were more akin to the Fabian¹⁰⁷ movement than to the more radical socialist philosophies of Clark.

Unlike Clark, Deakin was attracted to spiritualism whose forums provided a meeting place for Fabians both in the United Kingdom as well as in Australia. Born in 1856, Deakin was a lawyer and a politician who for over twenty years tirelessly campaigned for union between the States.

Clark’s radical approach in his draft constitution so pervaded the end document that following the Statute of Westminster, people, particularly lawyers, were misguidedly apt to say that Australia was a ‘crowned republic’.

I must admit that I shudder when some monarchists use the term ‘crowned republic’ which I surmise was adopted by them during the 1999 referendum debate as a counter to republican propaganda.

My opinion is that, we are in no way a republic. Our Constitution protects the people in a manner far better than any republic could for the power of the people is vested in the Crown which encompasses a myriad of strengths whereas under a republic the power of the people is vested in an individual with all of his or her own weaknesses.

Due to ill health and disappointment owing to Griffith’s rejection of his more extremist proposals, Clark did not participate in further conventions and actually voted against the final referendum thus denying himself a place amongst the Founding Fathers⁸³⁷.

The reason why our Constitution is as relevant today as it was when Clark produced his original draft in 1890 lies in the compromise reached by Griffith between Clark’s fundamental socialist ideology and the stodgy and staid approach of imperialists prevalent at the time.

THE FABIAN MOVEMENT

Following the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries Westminster democracy was working and political unrest in the far flung British Empire was a thing of the past. However, this success led to an unbending conservatism influencing the Parliament.

On the other hand, Europe did not have the benefit of parliamentary democracy and ever since the French Revolution of 1789¹⁴⁰, continued to be greatly unsettled. It was a time which saw Europe convulsed by despotism and anarchy. In the short period of sixty years Europe experienced thirty revolutions with several royal dynasties exiled and even the Austrian Empire¹⁸⁴ facing collapse.

Indeed, even anarchism became a recognised form of political action and in the latter half of the nineteenth century there developed two main socialist philosophies of Marxism and Fabianism. Karl Marx¹⁸⁵ had turned the world upside down with his radical writings promoting socialism through civil unrest whilst the Fabian Society tended to be more in tune with the British way of life by promoting the introduction of radical socialism into the political environment without bloodshed and carnage.

Marx developed a philosophy that economic development was basic to social evolution, demonstrating the inevitability of socialism - and eventually of communism - with the victory of the new class obtained by the elimination of the old order. 

The Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels¹⁸⁶ in 1848, but it was not until 1888 that it was translated into English despite Marx having moved in 1849 to Britain where he lived for the remaining thirty four years of his life.

The Fabian Society grew out of many discussion groups and debating societies of similar philosophies. Whilst these people were all intent on improving the lot of the ‘common man’, they were all elitists believing that they, as a superior caste, were the only people who could govern effectively.

It was thus that they developed the concept that social revolution must begin with educating the intellectual and wealthy classes - as opposed to the Communist approach of fomenting agitation amongst the working class.

The latter part of the 19th century was a time when Britain ruled the civilized world and ‘Empire’ was everything. The 1877 will of Cecil Rhodes¹⁸⁷ in which he left his fortune to ‘form a society to extend the British Empire throughout the world’, capsulated the romanticism of contemporary conservatives and their dedication to Britain and the glory of empire.

It was a time when the intelligentsia studied the volcanic ideals of Marx and Engels in their search for better government. It was a time of the uprising of the socialism which led to the founding of the Labour movement. A time when even the Christian churches were adopting socialist viewpoints.

Most early devotees of Fabianism and the preceding similar philosophies were, I believe, frightened of the tense situation pervading European countries whilst sincerely searching for a passive solution to the conformist atmosphere of Victorian politics solidly entrenched in the Dickens-like environment of traditionalism and imperialism.

Just as in the 1960’s and 70’s the young turned to their hippy and flower-power cultures, so did the young of the 1870’s and 80’s turn to alternative philosophies. Even young dons from Trinity College¹⁸⁸, Cambridge turned to psychic research as a substitute for their lost Evangelical faith and it was thus that spiritualist séances became a meeting point for these doubting intellectuals.

It has been said that the name ‘Fabian’ was adopted after the Roman Quintus Fabius Maximus¹⁸⁹ appeared to members at a séance.

The family of Fabius was one of the oldest and most distinguished patrician families of Rome claiming descent from Hercules and from the earliest of times playing a prominent part in Roman history.   Fabius also called ‘Cunctator’ (Latin for ‘delayer’) was the general who defeated Hannibal in the Second Punic War by tactics of masterly inactivity refusing to fight face to face and only engaging in small actions with continuous delaying strategies by which he knew he could win, no matter how long he had to wait. Tactics immortalised in the words For the right moment you must wait... when the time comes you must strike hard.

The Society attracted a surprisingly large number of influential people, including some whom we today would not normally associate with socialist reform. These included Bertrand Russell¹⁹⁰, H.G. Wells¹⁹¹, George Bernard Shaw¹⁹², Gerald Balfour¹⁹³ and his brother Arthur¹⁹⁴ (later a conservative Prime Minister) and Annie Besant¹⁹⁵, soon to become absorbed into the cult of Theosophy⁸⁰¹ and to play a large part in the introduction of ‘passive resistance’ in India, later so ably pursued by Gandhi⁸⁰⁰.

In his search for a solution to the social problems besetting England in the late Victorian and Edwardian times, Winston Churchill¹⁵⁵ had sought advice and instruction from the Fabian Socialist leader Beatrice Webb¹⁹⁶, whose husband, Sydney¹⁹⁷, was instrumental in drafting and welding Fabian ideals into the new constitution of the British Labour Party¹⁹⁸.

However, Churchill failed to be convinced by Fabianism and later dismissed the teachings of Mrs Webb declaring his unwillingness to be: shut up in a soup kitchen with Mrs Sydney Webb In turn Mrs Webb said of Churchill that he was: restless... .egotistical, bumptious, shallow minded and reactionary, but with a certain personal magnetism.⁷⁹¹

It was Churchill’s concern for the poor and the slum conditions in which so many people existed that was a factor in his turning against the Tory Party¹⁹⁹ and for a time, joining the Liberals²⁰⁰ .

Sir Edward Grey²⁰¹ together with eminent personages of the day including L. S. Amery²⁰², Lord Robert Cecil²⁰³ and Lord Milner²⁰⁴, if not actually in the Movement itself, were involved as what they termed ‘Coefficients’

It was, of course, Sir Edward Grey who later as foreign minister made the famous statement on the declaration of war: The lights are going out all over Europe; we shall not see  them lit again in our lifetime³⁰⁵.

This prophesy has become only too true, but it has been neither the might of the Kaiser¹⁰⁰ nor the later sway of Hitler’s²⁰⁶ evil Nazism, that has thrown our liberty into darkness, but the very Fabianism that Grey himself tampered with.

It was out of this philosophical menagerie that in 1884 (coincidently the year of Marx’s death), an organization was built which would permeate not only the labour movements, but also the conservative parties of the western world. It would also infiltrate the Christian church causing priests to use their spiritual position to foment political radicalism and dissent.

Indeed, it is a little known fact that the first Fabians were almost all lapsed Anglicans. The Christian Social Union²⁰⁷, formed in 1889, sought to permeate the Anglican Church with Fabian ideals, and soon attracted more than two thousand clerical members.

In 1894, the Fabian Society designated a large bequest to found the London School of Economics and Political Science²⁰⁸  (now popularly known as the LSE) and responsible for the education of a large number of British politicians.

The conservative Arthur Balfour himself contributed £2000 (an enormous sum in those days) and arranged the introduction of legislation in parliament which would give the school university status.

The LSE is now one of the largest schools of the University of London²⁰⁹ which as well as embracing the thinking of such international organisations as the World Bank⁸⁶, the International Monetary Fund⁸⁷ and the United Nations⁸⁵; through its past students exerts an enormous influence in the activities of many governments, particularly that of Great Britain

One can understand the motives behind Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee’s²¹⁰ dismemberment of the British Empire when one realises that he himself was a Fabian. In fact, even though the Fabian Society never had more than 4,000 members, they originated, promoted, and steered through parliament most of British social policy in the latter eighty years of the 20th Century. However, in a similar manner to the ‘green’ and ‘democratic’ factions, the Fabian movement in a sense betrayed and corrupted the early ideals upon which it was founded when it joined in unison with the Labour movement in the early nineteen-hundreds, thus totally politicising itself.

However mistaken the early thinkers behind this period of social reform may have been, we must admit that they were quite genuine in their search for an ideal world and most would be horrified that they gave birth to a philosophy that was to vigorously oppose the principle of Westminster democracy.

Although not members of the Australian Fabian Society²¹¹, Deakin and Clark moved in the same circles and in many ways shared similar views. Both were involved in the sort of debating societies and groups which preceded and led to the Fabian philosophy becoming established as a society in Australia in 1891, coincidently the same year which saw the founding of the Australian Labor Party²¹² Of the two, Deakin was the closer in accepted thinking through his dalliance with spiritualism.

A profound protestant, he wrote over a period of twenty nine years a book of nearly 400 prayers. Some time after Federation, in his book ‘The Federal Story’, Deakin held that:

 Federation and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution were ‘providential’ and were secured only by a series of ‘miracles’. In 1905 he described his spirituality with the words sufficient to say that the religion of Jesus Christ is the life of the present, the light of the future and the hope of the World⁸¹⁴.

Although linking itself to the Labor movement in Australia, Fabianism found a stumbling block in the innate conservatism of the bulk of the active membership of Labor which, unlike that in Britain, was predominantly Roman Catholic. It was not until the advent of Edward Gough Whitlam²¹³ that the (new) Labor platform and subsequent government was based almost entirely on Fabian principles. In Britain, although Attlee’s connivance with the American dream of superseding the British Empire was due to his Fabian outlook and even though every member of the late 1970s Cabinet of Prime Minister James Callaghan²¹⁴ was a Fabian, it was Blair⁹⁸ with his now formally declared ‘New Labour’²¹⁵ movement that actually led to the ‘Fabianisation’ of British politics. One wonders whether this was why Murdoch²¹⁶ brought Blair and Keating²¹⁷ - and others - together at Hayman Island²¹⁸ in Australia in July 1995 just prior to the British Election of 1996.

At the Fabian Society centenary dinner held in Adelaide on the 18th May 1984, the speech of former Prime Minister, Bob Hawke²¹⁹ epitomised the role that Fabianism has played in Australian politics. He said:

It is of course the classic concept of Fabianism - the inevitability of gradualness - and nothing is more widely misunderstood or more frequently misrepresented...Let me insist on what our opponents habitually ignore, and, indeed, what they seem intellectually incapable of understanding, namely the inevitable gradualness of our scheme of change.

For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did, most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless.

Almost from the beginning, its (The Fabian Society’s) founders envisaged that the vehicle would be a Labor Party... The (Fabian) Society drew its strength from its vision of the future of Labor and the Labor Party...

Australian Fabianism and Australian Fabians have made a specific and significant contribution to the Australian Labor movement and the Australian Labor Party. .. I gladly acknowledge the debt of my own Government to Fabianism. ²²⁰

Also in his speech, Hawke named several prominent Labor politicians as Fabians, with former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, as their own Fabius Maximus.

For over a century people wondered what the Fabian Society was all about. The very mention of the word would immediately consign one to the realms of the ‘conspiratorial right’. However, today the Fabian Society is openly encouraging membership, advertising itself on the internet and openly broadcasting the success of its surreptitious politicking over the past century. And why wouldn’t it?  For years it has admitted some of the most prominent people in the world to its ranks. It is a danger because it is able to exert tremendous influence on our future through its control of our politicians and the administrators of global organisations, and its ability to link together the socialist think-tanks of the Governments of major nations in the world today. Indeed since the advent of Christianity, never before has there ever been such a powerful influence on politics.

This is why member nations of the International Monetary Fund all follow specific economic policies whether individuals within their Governments concur or not. This is why the way in which we live is essentially controlled on a global basis through a myriad of international bodies and treaties.

The historian George Macaulay Trevelyan²²¹ described the Fabian Movement as intelligence officers without an army who influenced the strategy and even the direction of great hosts moving under other banners. Early Fabians delighted in describing themselves in one of their early pamphlets as the Jesuits of Socialism.⁵⁹⁹

Fabianism is unlike any other political ideal for it has no doctrine. Indeed it is not a doctrine, it is rather an attitude.

Whilst most political parties were founded on a range of fixed beliefs, Fabianism has none and is responsible for the disregard and even elimination of the underlying principles of both Conservative and Labour movements in the western world.

Without any fundamental principle to guide the Fabian movement, the question that must be asked is who or what actually controls the wielding of this tremendous influence?

Many have wondered how it is that there is little difference in ideology between Costello²²² and, say Crean²²³, why, in the United Kingdom, Hague²²⁴ and Blair are so alike and similarly, in the United States Bush⁸⁴ and Gore²²⁵? It is simply because whether they are Fabians or not, they and their political parties have been influenced by Fabianism so that today there is little difference between their politics and their policies.

It has been inferred that the Fabians were responsible for the Marshall Plan⁴⁶⁵, which, of course, led to the reconstruction of Europe as a social democracy, the precursor to European Union. Were they, I wonder, also responsible for the western attitude to the Baltic States, using Stalin’s²²⁷ aggression to manipulate acceptance of their own policies in Western Europe? Whatever the case, their influence upon world affairs is undoubted and even now openly boasted of by this very organization which once prided itself on its shrouded secrecy.

Fabianism and Westminster democracy have become anathema to each other. Fabianism can influence our politicians - even a Governor-General - but it cannot control the Crown, which is why the Westminster System - wherever it is truly practised - has to be destroyed or otherwise corrupted by removing the Crown.

In a similar vein to the immortal words of the 17th century James Duport²²⁸ Whom God would destroy He first sends mad, the Fabians must first ensure that the population is constitutionally illiterate and patriotically impotent. They must remove all evidence of, and loyalty to, the Crown and destroy any sense of national identity filling the void by directing the natural fervour of the people to politically neutered passions such as sport and the arts.

With the defeat of the republic at the recent referendum of 1999, we saw a tremendous outpouring of outrage from those who led the ‘Yes’ case. This was not only because they were unsuccessful, but by failing to topple the Crown they also failed in their fanatical aspiration to introduce what they now openly admit to as ‘globalisation’ or what used to be called ‘the new World Order’.

With the support of almost the entirety of the media, most politicians, the banks and big business, they felt they could not possibly fail, but fail they did because just over a hundred years ago, a group of people of differing political and philosophical opinions, but all patriots in their own way, met together and produced a document which I believe was fashioned under Divine Inspiration.

Our Federation Document, our Constitution was and is a modern document and remains as relevant to today’s needs as it was in 1901, resulting from the enlightened thinking particularly of the socialist Clark and the liberal Deakin but shaped in the conservatism of Griffiths and Barton.

The Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement delivered the power inherent in the Monarch to the British parliament. However, our Founding Fathers deliberately vested the authority of the Crown in the people rather than in the Parliament. This is why in Australia today our Constitution differs from British Westminster because in Australia it is the people and not parliament which is supreme.

There was great opposition (from the more political of the delegates) to the inclusion of provision for change to the constitution to be made only by referendum as drafted in Section 128 delivering authority into the hands of the people. Indeed many wanted parliament itself to have power to amend, quite rightly pointing out that it would be difficult to implement radical change if proposals had to be put to the people!

In the drafting of the constitution of the United States of America, Thomas Jefferson advocated that constitutions should be fluid documents with facility for unfettered amendment saying .. we might as well require a man to wear the coat that fitted him as a boy.⁷³⁹

However, the Founding Fathers preferred an opposing view: It is easier to prevent the politician from assuming new clothes than to cloak the individual in a mass of protective rights and followed closely the Swiss referendum provisions²²⁹. Switzerland, like Australia, is a Federation that is reliant upon popular direct democracy. In fact in a typical year the Swiss are likely to vote on up to 16 federal propositions and double or triple that number at state or local levels.

It has amended its federal constitution 47 times since 1901! An interesting fact, which could well have prevented many problems currently faced by Australia currently and potentially well into the future, is that in Switzerland it is obligatory for referendums to be held on foreign treaties as well as on all constitutional amendments!

Australians jealously guard their constitutional rights and since Federation have passed only eight out of forty four⁷⁹⁵ proposals for constitutional amendment. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that they will ever allow politicians to accumulate greater power. Most of those who sought change, sought it not for the benefit of the people, but to facilitate their global ambitions and this is why they not only failed but failed miserably. 

THE PREAMBLE

One of the reasons for their failure can be sourced to the Preamble establishing a Union which was indissoluble and which could not be broken.

We in this country have a heritage of British institutions descended from the disputes and wars of Britain going right back to Alfred the Great and beyond. We have inherited the rich tradition of the Biblical coronation. We have inherited a constitution under God.

The Christian heritage of Australia did not start with the Preamble but rather the Preamble was a result of the deep seated Christian beliefs in this country. I have for many years said that I believed that the Preamble was written under Divine inspiration and the more I have researched into our Constitution and the Preamble, the more convinced I am that this is so.

I find it remarkable that, at a time when radical socialism and atheism were prevalent amongst many influential people, those few individuals who met over a hundred years ago could have forced through the inclusion of the words humbly relying upon the blessing of Almighty God, thus giving to our constitution an aura of divinity. Similarly, I must say that I find it particularly reprehensible that ministers of the cloth, persons who profess to be of God, would condone the removal or the dilution of the words ‘Almighty God’.

When Queen Victoria gave royal Assent to the Act of the British parliament on the 9th July 1900, which brought the Australian Commonwealth into existence, it was the Act (termed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act⁶⁹) rather than the Constitution which was itself a clause of the Act, which contained the Preamble forever unique in its opening words:

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established.

The Founding Fathers devoted a fair amount of time in the drafting of the Preamble. They expressed a concern over the word ‘commonwealth’ with its republican connotations and some were against the inclusion of the word ‘Almighty’.

The first draft of the Preamble was debated at the National Australasian Convention of 1891, but it was not until 1899 that the final words humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God were incorporated thus guaranteeing the free exercise of religion.

We owe these words predominantly to the efforts of the South Australian, Patrick McMahon Glynn²³⁰ and the Victorian, Henry Bournes Higgins²³¹. 

Whilst it was not formally part of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers intended that the Preamble be available for interpretation by the High Court. As a result of this, the Preamble has been the subject of some considerable debate, providing a platform for political change for influencing legal decisions and establishing the doctrine of legal equality ensuring the constitutional unity of the Australian people ‘‘in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth’’.

The Founding Fathers believed that the purpose of the Preamble was to declare:

• The agreement of the people of Australia
• Their reliance on the blessing of Almighty God
• The purpose to unite
• The character of the union was to be indissoluble
• The form of the union was to be a Federal Commonwealth
• The dependence of the union under the Crown
• The Government of the union under the Constitution, and
• The expediency of provision for admission of other colonies as States.

Of these only the purpose to unite, the form of the union, the Government of the union under the constitution, and provision for admission of other colonies as States are found elsewhere in the constitution and the remaining four, according to Quick and Garran²³²:

have therefore to be regarded as promulgating principles, ideas or sentiments operating at the time of the formation of the instrument, in the minds of the framers, and by them imparted to and approved by the people to whom it was submitted.

CONCLUSION

In this year of 2001, the centenary year of our Federation, is it not an occasion to celebrate 100 years of peaceful, democratic existence as a Constitutional Monarchy free from any prolonged period of crisis.

A period under which all of our problems have been settled lawfully and constitutionally. A period in which the people of this country have never been forced to accept any government other than that for which the majority, through the electoral system, have voted.

Admittedly there have been times when things have seemed to go wrong, but the fact that we have continuous elections interspersed with parliamentary enquiries and royal and other commissions, is evidence that our democratic system is indeed working, and working well. Was it not Bishop Heber who so aptly wrote: Though every prospect pleases and only man is vile.²³³ One cannot blame the problems of the corruptness of man on our Constitution.

The centenary of Federation celebrations, despite being chaired by an Anglican Archbishop are, I believe, evidence of the corruptness of man, for in their republican bias, the organisers, together with the media, have completely and absolutely ignored the very essence of our Constitution as well as the Crown and its embodiment, the Queen. This is the state in which we find ourselves just one year after the decisive defeat of republicanism in this country following a decade of divisive arguments, misinformation and pure emotional propaganda - all costing millions of dollars.

At a time when we should have celebrated the positive aspects of our constitution, aspects obviously appreciated by the people who rejected any concept of change, we have been subjected to a barrage of republican propaganda during the taxpayer-funded Federation celebrations which, by deliberate omission could well have been commemorating the achievements and the life of some country other than Australia which was once proud to have been under the British mantle.

Not only has our heritage been discarded by media and quasi Government and political institutions but the High Court has, since its ruling that Britain is a foreign power, further eroded our links to English Common Law by declaring that neither Magna Carta nor the Bill of Rights has any relevance in Australia today.

I suppose it should come as no surprise that we are now told, again by the absurdly named ‘politically correct’, that the arrival of the First Fleet⁵³⁰ comprising 1,030 persons, was an ‘invasion’, as though a huge battle has been fought to conquer this land!

In Parliament House in Sydney, there is a huge painting of Captain Phillip²³⁴ raising the old Union Jack on Australian soil. From the time of the raising of that flag on the 26^th January 1788, the People of this country, whatever their ethnic origin, have enjoyed a maturing democracy unparalleled in this Region, for the Fleet brought not only people and provisions but the common law and the liberties of England encompassing Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.

New South Wales is the only State in Australia where our Government House has become a reception centre. State governments continue to legislate to dismantle symbols of our Constitutional Monarchy, including oaths of allegiance.

Even churches, in the republican bias of so many of their priests, have arbitrarily abandoned prayers for the Queen, as Sovereign of Australia - and yet the Queen would be one of the most Christian monarchs in existence occupying a throne founded on biblical principles.

This is all the result of campaigns by republicans for over a decade to water down our monarchical birthright and it is time that we, the people put a stop to these covert actions.

It is time that we dispelled the myth of political correctness which is but the attempt by those in control of public communications to impose their will upon the people to remove that which exists in order to create their idea of a new world - and demand a return to common decency and to morality.

A return to the times when we all knew what is was to be patriotic and to be proud to be called an Australian.

The underlying principle of the Monarchist League is ‘to retain the Crown in the Constitution’. A principle which has guided us for the past fifty eight years of our existence and a principle we have so far never and will never betray, whatever the cost.

As the status of the Crown and of Her Majesty our Queen continues to be marginalized as republicans persist with their agenda of change by stealth, our realism and our idealism can only too well be described in the words of Alfred, Lord Tennyson¹¹⁶:

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.⁸¹¹

Let us never yield in defence of our constitution and our democracy and, above all, of its guardian and protector, Her Majesty our Queen.