If we ask those innocents who support a republic and/or socialism, to tell us what kind of government they want, they mainly set out the kind of rights our British Common Law was designed to provide. Yet they support the political forces that have undermined this heritage! If they succeed in finishing the job then there is no practical way we can regain these privileges.
Our Australian Constitution gives to us the British heritage and Common Law system which is so different from that of most other European countries whose people live under Roman Law.
Magna Carta, the British Bill of Rights etc., - the whole panoply that led to the achievement of government of the people by the people, is ours - all that was gained in English Law before our constitution was written is constitutionally ours. If Britain is absorbed into the European Economic Community then all this will be lost to Britain and (if we have not similarly cut our own throats) to Australia! It is already decided by our leaders that we are to become a vassal state subject to the United Nations.
What is it that is so valuable about the Common Law system?
It is equality under law; it is 'innocent until proven guilty'; it is freedom to be an independent, self-deciding, human being.
An Englishman's home is his castle (hard to believe now that practically every petty official has some right to come in and do almost anything from search your papers to taking your children) but before we were robbed, that is the way it once was, and lawfully, still is.
In essence, Common Law decrees that the Crown holds sovereignty on behalf of the people. This sovereignty is granted on the sworn promise that the Crown will control parliament in so far as to see that custom and Law are obeyed and that the parliament legislates, WITHIN LAW, by the will of the people. The parliament is elected only to serve.
What went wrong in our case, is that although we were given the documents of Common Law and the right to set up our own government, we had already political parties who were hungry for power. These political parties, like their brethren in other countries, never at any time sought to provide the electorate with understanding of our system. Nor did they provide mechanisms which would give to the public some way to exercise their responsibilities.
We were told that by electing OUR political party we were controlling our parliament and, if our parliament became unworkable or tried to do illegal things, the Crown could dismiss the parliament and call a new election so that the people could exercise their authority by electing a new parliament.
What is not advertised is that the party representative is chosen by, and gives his first allegiance to, his party. His parliamentary vote is directed by his party not his electorate, and we (the people) are allowed no practical means of objecting to anything our parliament does. We are led to believe that the elected party has a mandate to govern, so even keeping within the law they can do many things detrimental to public desire or benefit.
Although the Crown is sworn to protect us, the Crown is instructed by the parliamentary representatives and no comment is ever made about THOSE WHO INSTRUCT 'our' political parties.
Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR)
In Switzerland this system is working, and has worked, for many years. So let's translate it to our situation.
In the Swiss system (as in common law) the highest authority is vested in the electorate. To make effective this authority, the electorate (apart from electing its representatives to the Parliament) has the power to reject or introduce laws so as to control administrative policy (both internal and foreign) or change the constitution. This power applies equally to the revoking of past administrative decisions which may, or may not, have had public approval.
This, translated into the Australian situation, would mean that, on matters of general policy, a referendum is forced on the petition of 77,000 of the electorate (equal 0.5% of our total population). For constitutional amendment, 123,000 (equal to 0.8% of population). These numbers are based (in proportion to population) on the Swiss system.
To bring in such a system would require a certain amount of thought and discussion, it may well be possible to improve on the Swiss system and it may well be that it would take a few years for people to become used to exercising this power. But we should be careful not to let 'experts' 'sell' us some 'watered-down' version and it is vital that we be given our say on a number of things already passed into law.
Could the system be taken over by large organizations?
The international manipulators greatly fear any input of public control of legislation and will push all possible arguments to try to influence people against the idea. Only this morning, on the ABC I heard it forcibly expressed that the Australian people hate referendums. Actually Australians have rejected items put to referendum because most proposals have been designed to increase the powers of government.
In the first year or two there may be some grandstanding as people flex their newly found muscle, but a few defeats will soon show that there is no profit in special interest groups wasting their time and money. Having a referendum does not mean it will be passed and the public anger at moves to 'muscle-in' make such attempts counter-productive.
CIR is a two edged sword and people will soon learn to handle with care.
THE COST. The cost is insignificant in relation to the cost of dictatorial government. Switzerland has few natural resources and is one of the richest countries; Australia is one of the natural resources richest of countries and yet third most indebted. Our national debt is reported to have risen from about 2 BILLION (1975) to over 102 BILLION by Jan 1987. This is a result of political sell-out. A lot of referenda can be purchased for that. Also, once established, an electronic system could be set up for both referenda and elections and the total bill become less than at present.
To ease the system in to the community, we might be offered a package deal.
The ability to initiate legislation could be delayed for three to five years to give a little time for education and adjustment. As a trade off for delaying the power to initiate policy, it will be important to offer a package of issues for public decision. There has been a lot of political action not approved by the general public over recent years and people must have the chance to reverse these items of legislation to 'clear the boards' and save both public money and agony.
There is a long list of things I believe the people would be very interested to have their say about and I will try to list in order of importance as I read public feeling.
Let the first bundle of referenda be arranged within six months of the election. Subjects to be individually voted on at the one time may be:
a) Non-European immigration;
b) Limit to taxation for social services;
c) Removal of foreign affairs power over internal policy.
d) Limit to Government overseas borrowing and freedom from
the world economy.
e) Heavy Tax on payment of interest on overseas loans for
takeover activities.
Second year:*
f) Work for dole
g) Social engineering in schools.
h) Abortion.
i) Pornography.
j) Closed shop or forced unionism.
k) Death penalty for child rape, drug pushing, assassination.
*may be seen as a State issues but the Feds hold the money.
I have probably forgotten some important matters but the above give the idea. I am sure that if any CREDIBLE group were to go to the people with such a policy they would be certain of victory.
I have great faith that if you give people responsibility they will exercise it responsibly, and we must accept that Australia is now, constitutionally, a quasi socialist republic. Without some such return of power to the people, even with someone like Joh as PM, there is no way that the takeover of the nation can be prevented. d&ta06.htm