Chapter 9


Furtively, and by means of doubtful legality, Australians has been separated from their heritage. Unless we force a return to public control of Parliament we have no effective constitutional protection. Assuming Australians continue to keep their collective heads in the proverbial sand and do not take advantage of warnings, then we can expect:-

1) The Government (with the aid of international financiers) will continue to maintain an artificial economy until the Australia Act coup can be ratified at some convenient time such as the bi-centennial celebrations in 1988.

2) Every effort will be made to soothe social unease.

3) Assuming success of the above then there will come an announcement in terms such as this; " As Australia has been nominally a republic since the signing of the "Australia Act 1986", and as, in that period since, we have not had a legally sound constitution, it is thought appropriate that at this time of celebration the Government should announce and officially declare, Australia a republic. We proudly announce a new constitution and offer Australians a referendum of acceptance."

Of course the timing will depend on the continued success of political parties and mass media in misleading us as to what is really going on, so it is up to us to awaken enough people to force the delay or abandonment of the final takeover.

Our enemies never sleep. Since the first edition of the Call it Treason booklet was produced a highly paid Constitutional Commission has been made public. The stated purpose of this Commission is to advise the government on a MAJOR REVIEW of the Australian Constitution.

By the time you read this, that Commission will have finished taking 'submissions' from the general public, but do not be concerned, by now you should realize that any submission you could have made would not alter the result.

This commission was not formed at public request and so is democratically illegitimate and devoid of public authority. By submitting to it suggestions (as called for) we, in fact, acknowledge and grant it authority and the right to advise on changing the constitution.

It is well to remember that public understanding of our constitution has been so restricted that it is now impossible for the general public to make intelligent submissions. Even constitutional lawyers, because they do not make money from that aspect of constitutional law important to political freedom, are poorly informed.

As devious change to the national Constitution opens the way to political dictatorship and despotism, we should, in public if possible, ask what is the real purpose of this commission, given that:

a) under the present Constitution the people are the authority and the only legitimate purpose of the parliament is to give effect (so far as is possible) to the will of the people. Therefore, any act of parliament not giving effect to the will of the people is democratically illegitimate;

b) the people have made no request for major change to the Constitution;

c) no attempt is being made to explain the present Constitution or make possible the effective expression of the will of the people;

d) any change to our present Constitution must (constitutionally) be put to referendum and passed by a majority in each State. As no such referendum has ever been passed except when supported by BOTH major political parties, can the present move have any purpose unless we assume the political parties are conspiring to impose further major constitutional change by trickery?

In view of the national importance of this matter we should try to publicize the following:

1. As Constitutional Commission members are political appointees, they must resign after recommending that there can be no legitimate review of the constitution without first:

(a) giving the public an understanding of the proper working and benefits of the present (legitimate) constitution;

(b) encouraging the proper working of the constitution.

(c) (after completion of a & b) receiving a public request. Should this request eventuate, arrangements may THEN be made for a Commission selected and elected by the electorate.

2. Or, if the Commission is determined to continue without public authority, it should recommend that:

(a) as any meaningful Government of the people by the people requires the electorate to choose and elect its own representatives, the Commission advise the Government to disallow political parties from nominating candidates for election;

(b) as the people have no enforceable avenue of complaint against parliament produced legislation, the Commission advise constitutional provision for a system of Citizen Initiated Referendum as exists in Switzerland.

(c) the voice of the electorate be RECOGNIZED as law.

3. Or, if unwilling to expose the deceit of political party government to this extent, at least recommend that:

(a) as exercise of party discipline in Parliament constitutes contempt for, or conspiracy against, the electorate, it be henceforth disallowed;

(b) each elected representative must seek electorate opinion on matters of change to national policy and also seek electorate instruction when beginning a term of office;

(c) steps be immediately taken to repeal laws based on interpretations of the Constitution not approved by referendum and all change resulting therefrom.

Summing up. The Constitutional Commission is democratically illegitimate and has no right to give the parliament any recommendation other than to return authority to the people in the spirit and to the letter of the legal constitution.


A letter on the above lines was sent to The Australian newspaper but unpublished.

We may expect frivolous excuses/reasons presented to the Australian public and designed to deceive us that anything dangerous is happening.

Mass media will try to prevent dismay and apprehension by suppressing appearance of any political threat during the time elapsed between the Australia Act coup and a new Australian Constitution. They will virtually ignore political activity such as The Education and Public Instruction Act (N.S.W. 1987) designed to deny parents any choice of what their children are taught or legislation designed to deny the Sydney City Council legal rights as well as various similar undemocratic (despotic law)* actions being taken by Australian parliamentary bodies.

NOTE: Despotic law = "the rule, based on force and unrestricted by law" = rule by despotism unrestricted by any enforceable civil law.

Legislation based on despotic law is being enacted by the States and by the Federal Government. If the public ever get to hear about this repressive legislation it is mainly as a result of chance stumbling rather than because it is reported by parliament or the news media.

We (the people) do not know what legislation is being passed through our parliaments. Even M.P.s often do not know, or understand, what they vote for.

One of our better known independent (N.S.W.) M.P.s, Mr. John Hatton, has called it "Government by Decree", and that is exactly what it is. He also says:

The most frightening thing about the gunning of legislation through the Upper and Lower Houses is the fact that much of the legislation is umbrella legislation, which gives Executive Government power to make regulations and these are made by the hundreds, tabled in the House and effectively become law without any consideration at all . . .

The Parliament is treated as a necessary nuisance by Executive Government and an arm of the public service . . .

The Member for Wagga, Joe Schill, pointed out on the last day of the sitting, that many of the regulations had not been tabled according to law . . .

Examples of the kind of legislation being introduced include the N.S.W. Industrial Arbitration (Industrial Torts) Amendment Bill which, had it not been exposed, would have created a legalized apartheid giving privilege to trade unions and going directly against the principle of "equality before the law".

Perhaps an even more glaring example is the N.S.W. Education and Public Instruction Bill of 1987. Let us read directly from a full page advertisement placed in the North Shore Advocate (4/3/1987) by Coalition Affirming Freedom in Education:



+ Forced entry, search, and seizure of property, records and materials in church facilities used by schools.

+ Forced entry, search and seizure of property, records and materials on private school property.

+ Forced entry, search, and seizure of private property, records, and materials in private dwellings upon suspicion that "illegal teaching" is being conducted.

+ Interrogation of parents and children.


+ To begin to operate a school designed to reflect a unique philosophy, Christian or otherwise.

+ To select the system, methods, texts, resource books and content of programmes that now define and differentiate such schools.

+ To send your child to a private school of your own personal preference.


+ To arbitrarily close certain existing private schools.

+ To disallow, impose difficult conditions, cause lengthy delays, and generally make extremely difficult if not impossible the opening of new private schools.

+ To remove present certification from some schools and force re-registration under completely new and unneces- sarily strict intrusive measures, based upon many yet to be determined regulations and guidelines.

+ To require re-registration of existing schools upon the occasion of even relatively small and insignificant changes in facility or operation.

+ To dictate and impose : - patterns of study - teaching and learning methods - educational philosophy - curricula, materials, books, resources and programmes - religious philosophy and content through control of the above.

+ To devise and implement an unlimited and undefined number of rules, regulations and requirements under the definition of the clause, "any other prescribed matter", at the Minister's discretion.


+ The right of trial by a jury of one's peers.

+ The right of the assumption of innocence rather than guilt.

+ The right of freedom from prosecution at the discretion or whim of an official.

+ The right of a judicial trial and appeal.

+ The right to avoid an unfair trial by a tribunal appointed by your prosecutor.

+ The right to be free from the threat of harsh criminal penalties, including large fines and imprisonment, to be imposed through contempt proceedings.

Making quite clear the purpose of such draconian legislation is the following article reporting on an English experience:

The Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) has suspended the headmaster of a primary school because he was too successful in improving the academic standards and sporting competitiveness of the school.

The headmaster, Brian Dugan, took over ailing St. Jude's Primary School in 1980. Since then the school has more than doubled the number of pupils, established a waiting list, and established an outstanding reputation for academic standards. In the last four years, nine children have won coveted scholarships to private schools.

Unfortunately, the 'modern' educationists at the left-wing ILEA were outraged at the success of St. Jude's. In a secret report the authority said St. Jude's was 'a cause of concern', and the school was described as 'an extremely formal school with a highly competitive ethos and, as such, stands well outside the established traditions of primary education in this authority.' In July the ILEA ordered an inquiry into St. Jude's and suspended Mr. Dugan!

That the general public sits still and allows a small group of fanatics to dictate that their children must receive a second or third rate standard of education defies all imagination. Unfortunately, as we have seen, this hypnotic trance extends worldwide.

It is also now discovered (reported Sunday Telegraph 26/4/1987) that there is a Federal law in place that allows children of any age to apply to the courts, and get legal aid, for any order they wish connected with guardianship, custody, access and maintenance.

This provision, in a Christian community could be used to protect children from brain damaged or irrational parents but under despotic rule is a fearful monster.

Who instigates this legislation? Who gives the orders? Who owns the hidden hand? We will never be told who is in control. They will never tell us that we are 'ruled by force unrestricted by law'. Your first indication that you have lost the protection of law will most likely be some bureaucrat kicking on your door and demanding .. Your books .. Your papers .. Your children .. Your life.

You may protest, "This is a free country" .. No one will listen.

You may scream, "This cannot be happening" .. but it will.

If we are too cowardly to act when we have legality, then we will have only ourselves to blame when we suffer, and know, that we had the opportunity to change things, but ignored it.

It is now obvious that, given another term of political party government, we will live under new 'law' bound by a new 'religion'. The army and police will be controlled by politicians not, as now, by the Crown.

We will live a few more years under increasing restraint as the elitist Super Mafia consolidate their control but we will no longer have a future to call our own.

Politicians may offer a referendum. However, unless we force the issue NOW, the referendum will not give us choice of a government controlled by the people. We will be given only trivial choices lacking authority. The purpose of it all will be the soothing of social unrest.

It will NOT be made clear that Australia has become a SOCIALIST republic with civil laws and behaviour subservient to the United Nations. It will always be maintained that we are a free democracy with a choice of political parties, but of course we will not have control of the political policy of the political parties.

Once our new national status has been accepted we can expect to see suicides by people who have no suicidal tendencies; heart failures by people having no history of heart problems; fatal accidents to those normally careful, and killings 'by robbers' of people who have little of value to robbers.

People will quickly become afraid. They will become afraid because they know what despotic law means. It is an old experience to many new Australians - where will they turn next? But if we are not prepared to act now when there are no military police in the streets we will certainly not act when there ARE military police in the streets.

Already many who are becoming aware of what is happening are afraid to speak openly.

A little later it will be announced that, as Australia is under United Nations 'protection', all foreign bases will be removed (as also in the Philippines). Without full communications and bases, it will be no longer safe for the USA to maintain a fleet in the Indian Ocean.

At the same time the moral subversion of the young will proceed unrestrained; child abuse, genuine suicides, murder, rape, robbery and all kind of crime will rise exponentially unless this population has already been decimated by means of the AIDS virus (Is this our first 'politically protected disease?)

A world-wide economic collapse (the basis for which has been well developed over recent years) will be forced on the nations so that social strains (race and culture) will be inflamed by hunger and extreme economic hardship. This will serve as a cover for further population reduction.

In the 1990s, the social decline of the West, coupled with the often quoted dominant superiority of USSR armed forces, will seduce all nations to accept (as did our own nation) agreements already secretly made. World Government will be promoted and celebrated as the way back to prosperity and the only alternative to world war.

Once World Government is accepted it will soon follow that all INFORMATION and COMMUNICATION will be controlled from the one source. This achieved, the indiscriminate genocide of all remaining immigrant life on the southern continents and islands can be carried out and the indigenous people 're-educated' to return to native lifestyles in (designated) 'wilderness areas'.

How often do you hear people say that Australians would never submit? Are we not submitting? We hear no cackle in the hen house at the entry of the fox; we see no demonstration in the streets at the removal of community responsibilities; we see no 'tar & feathers' being prepared for treacherous leaders.

When the Communists seize the farmlands will the farmers resist as strongly as the farmers of the Ukraine in the 1930s, and will millions of Australians die of starvation as violence gives cover and excuse for food and transport sabotage? d&ta10.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents