Instead of warning the Australian people that we were being pushed around by multinational corporations, swindled by international bankers, dictated to by the UN, and bought out by foreigners, the political parties that have governed Australia for the past thirty years have actually co-operated in the process. More than just bad government, that amounts to treachery !
The major parties are actively working toward general and complete disarmament of Australia while Asia arms at an alarming rate.
The major parties have a bipartisan approach to the sellout of our assets, resources and land. They plunge us into irrational debt. As an example, we borrow to give $1.3 billion to Thailand so Thailand can buy $200 million helicopter gunships, $250 million worth of Harrier jump jets and a $300 million aircraft carrier.
Our laws and safeguards once hinged on the Common Law and the statutory laws written and reaffirmed in the Magna Carta 1297, Habeas Corpus 1640, and the Bill of Rights 1688. Now, the major parties no longer hold these laws as enactments to be observed and obeyed. The Queen of Australia does not even comment.
Decisions on treatment of Aborigines sow the seeds for civil war. The major parties espouse multiculturalism, but have not even achieved a reconciliation with the original Australians ! A republic already brought in by stealth without the knowledge or approval of the people poses a similar threat to our society.
Australia is becoming a place where it is not nice to live. We have plunged from the highest standard of living in the world to 23rd, then 30th.
Rampant crime, youth suicide, unemployment, inflation and poverty in one of the most richly endowed nations on earth -
Disarmament and immigration policies bordering on national suicide -
These are the issues this web site is about. If you don't care; don't want to know; don't want to cure the problem, then don't read on. On the other hand, if you want to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem, then please arm yourself with some of the facts:
self-serving political parties and politicians
lies and deceit of the mass media
foreign control by greedy banks and big business
sellout of Australia's assets
rundown of Australia's defences
Aged Pension Swindle
In the seventies the Liberals took the contents of the Age Pension Trust Account to which my generation paid 7.5% of our income to give us all the Age Pension (and we all still pay it). They now take another 9% to give us "superannuation". They sold at least one super scheme to the French and spent the money. They propose to buy back the farm, pay off the national debt, and still have money to keep us in retirement. They can't even count.
Politicians destroyed nearly all Australian industry by removing tariff protection. They were not smart enough to do it selectively, keeping the more essential industries that could have kept our workforce usefully employed. What was not destroyed was privatised (sold to foreign interests). Our minerals, timber, oil and fishing are foreign owned. They sell our hospitals, roads, bridges, jails, Qantas, our shipping line, Telstra, airports, the Snowy Mountain Authority, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the electricity grid, Commonwealth Bank railways, resorts, public utilities, even some water supplies, and Australia Post is next. Were you ever asked?
According to AUSTRADE, this is how much of our enterprise has been transferred to foreign interests:
Processed Food 95%,
Motor Vehicles 100%,
Confectionery & Beverages 84%,
Building Materials 88%
Oil/Gas 92%. What do you think is going to happen when it's all gone?
To speed the sellout, our pollies let banks change existing loan contracts (in retrospect and in direct contravention of Contract Law) to push bank interest up to 20% and even 30% knowing the people would be unable to pay. They couldn't. The banks foreclosed. Bank assets went from $87 billion to $382 billion in five years (Australian Bureau of Statistics figures), $90,000 on average per income earning family.
Now that interest rates are lower again the banks cry poor and raise charges.
Given away !
ALP/DEM/LIB/NAT pollies gave away our north west shelf oilfields, worth $250 billion in proven reserves, to Indonesia (AUST 7/9/88 AGE 9/9/88). The fields are all on the Australian continental shelf and there could have been no successful legal claim made against them (International Law - Forum Report 11/11/1978 ISBN 0 85847 048 9). That creamed off another $80,000 per income earning family.
Aussie dollar slashed in value
ALP/LIB/NAT/DEMOCRATS mismanagement of Australia's currency between 1966 to 1996, had the result that the value of our dollar was eroded by 97%, taking away 29/30ths of our savings, life assurance, and superannuation (Source: Commonwealth Year Books, Currency: Notes & Coins). One result of their stable government.
Mineral royalties lost
Even Australia's unmined minerals are not ours. Nearly all have been transferred to foreign owned mining conglomerates. We are not even going to get royalties. Once upon a time royalties from our minerals went to the government, and they used that money to provide services.
In a two stage transfer, most royalties were eliminated. Step one was to transfer mineral rights to aborigines. Then came the tricky part. In exchange for a $3,000,000 binge on truck loads of lollies, soft drink, cigarettes and alcohol, the minerals rights were transferred to foreign interests ! Now, neither the aborigines nor the non-aborigines derive benefits in royalties, from what was once our mineral wealth, worth billions of dollars. The pollies then told us we needed a new tax: a GST.
The GOLD sell-off
The government just swapped $2,400 million in Australian gold reserves for some paper scrip that will become valueless anytime the international financiers so decide. The paper scrip came from the countries who live on our foreign aid money. The government says gold is no longer significant in international economics. Fools ! Why then were others snapping up our gold reserves?
My generation carried real guns to keep Australia safe. Today's pollies leave the soldiers of this generation deliberately disadvantaged, armed with toys that melt down after a few rounds are fired. They will be slaughtered if ever they have to fight, leaving us as the front line. I am not afraid to fight an invader, but I object to Australian traitors and fools disarming us and leaving us defenceless, ruining our economy and preparing us for slavery.
Government Financial Mismanagement
Sellout of Australia's Assets
The major political parties in Australia have a bipartisan approach to the sellout of our assets, resources and land.
Heading for Third World poverty
Most of us know that all is not well with the way Australia is being run.
Why is Australia, the World's most richly endowed nation per capita, plunging into Third World poverty at such an alarming rate?
The answer lies in our banking system. If you were permitted to lend ten million dollars you didn't have at 10% per annum you could earn a million a year. If you were permitted to lend the total money in all banks at 10%, even though it was not yours, you would have an annual income of $22,251,900,000 (ABS 1996 figures). Not a bad income having invested nothing of your own. That is exactly what our government allows the banks to do to us using the Fractional Reserve Banking system. The same system that would guarantee the collapse of our monetary system tomorrow if all depositers tried to withdraw even a quarter of their savings on that day.
To understand how banks create money out of thin air, ponder this:
Suppose you have $1000 in your account. The bank counts it as part of their reserve and lends Fred $1000. Now you have $1000 in your account and Fred has $1000 that he is paying $10% on. That adds up to $2000 on paper, even though only your original $1000 ever really existed. Using the 10% Statutory Reserve deposit requirement allowed by our government, and hoping that not too many of their customers will ask for their cash at any one time, the bank can lend ten Freds $1000, giving them an income of $1000 a year from your deposit alone.
When Keating brought in the foreign banks they put the interest up to 18%, 25%, and even 32%. They were pulling in twice the total of all deposits per year without risking or investing a single dollar. Not satisfied with that income, the Statutory Reserve deposit was dropped from 10% to 6% (and called a prime assets ratio) so the banks could lend 15 times their total deposits.
With their profits the financiers bought our minerals, coal, iron ore and uranium, opals, sapphires, sugar cane, feedlots, timber, oil, fishing, hospitals, roads, chemical, pharmaceutical, electrical, tooling, and white goods factories, bridges, jails, tourist resorts, abattoirs, farms, superannuation schemes, railways, buses, trams, cattle stations, Telstra, Commonwealth Bank, railways, electricity, public utilities, and even some water supplies. To add insult to injury, under a 1953 tax agreement the big multinationals pay no tax here. Can you see how they cleaned us out?
But would the Reserve Bank allow such a thing to happen to us, the Australian people?
YES, they would, and did. WHY? Because the Reserve Bank is subservient to the privately owned Clearing House, which allows we Australians to send only a couple of members along to its board meetings so that they can be told what to do, namely, what the world financiers tell them to do.
They didn't teach you about this at school, did they? Did you see it explained in any of the mainstream media?
Instead of warning the Australian people that we were being pushed around by multinational corporations, swindled by international bankers, dictated to by the UN, and bought out by foreigners, the political parties that have governed Australia for the past thirty years have actually co-operated in the process. The sale of our people's bank and invitation to foreign banks to set up operations in Australia has left us at the mercy of international financiers.
"In just three years from June 1992 the amount paid out to foreigners as dividends has increased by 152% ! This is Australian generated wealth that is pouring out of Australia to improve the standard of living in other countries - at Australia's expense !"
So says The Australian Owned Companies Association, in its AusBuy report on Australia's balance of payments. It goes on:
"So in the last 10 years Australia has bought almost as much merchandise as it has sold, has spent a bit more on services than it earned, but has had an enormous loss of $138.9 billion in 'income', this being due to the high level of foreign investment in Australia.
"To finance the 1995 Current Account deficit Australia has had to sell to foreigners the equivalent of 20 Arnotts biscuit companies. The problem is, Australia doesn't have 20 Arnotts biscuit companies, and 60% of the existing one has already been sold to foreigners.
"Selling assets to pay for revenue expenses has to be the ultimate step in bad national management. By the year 2005 it is obvious that there will have to be a change in the Australian Government policies regarding foreign ownership and the protection of Australian industries, if for no other reason than Australia by then will have very little left to sell, nothing left to protect."
Reserve Bank of Australia research (RDP 9405) shows that in 1993 Australia had the highest level of direct foreign investment as a ratio of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any major industrialised country.
Foreign investment and job creation
"While there are hundreds of thousands of Australians working for foreign companies, only a small percentage of these jobs have been 'created' by the foreigners. Where there has been growth in the number of Australians employed by particular foreign companies this has usually come from growth in the size of the Australian market or by aquisition of existing businesses or by putting Australian owned companies out of business. Only in rare cases are genuine new jobs created. The extremely high cost to Australia of foreign investment also has a major effect in reducing the number of jobs in Australia."
So says The Australian Owned Companies Association, in its AusBuy report on foreign investment inAustralia. It goes on:
"The takeover offer by the Campbell Soup Co. for Arnotts Biscuits is a good example of the effect of foreign investment on job creation.
"In their submission to the Foreign Investment Review Board dated 24th March 1986, Campbell soup said that if they were given approval to increase their shareholding in Arnotts to 40% then, amongst other benefits, they would increase Arnotts' workforce by 1480 from the level at that date, which was 7500.
"In October 1992, after six years of Campbell Soup involvement, Arnotts was employing 4900 staff, a reduction of 35% NOT an increase as promised, of 20%. By July 1994, the number of employees had decreased again to 4300.
"Why have a Foreign Investment Review Board if a foreigner can promise something and do the opposite? It would be cheaper to have a sign at all major airports saying:
'Australia for sale
no unreasonable offer refused'
Is there anything an ordinary Australian can do about all this?
"The ONLY way to buy back Australia and the ONLY way to to keep Australia Australian owned is to buy from Australian owned companies." says The Australian Owned Companies Association. The Association publishes a series of guides to help you identify which businesses are Australian owned, and which foreign. In most of your common purchases you still have a choice of buying from Australian owned companies or foreign.
Says the Association: "If every Australian averages $50 per week buying Australian made products from Australian owned companies - instead of spending the same amount buying imported products from foreign owned companies, then Australia would:
SAVE $20 BILLION A YEAR ON FOREIGN DEBT
DIRECTLY CREATE 500,000 NEW JOBS
NO LONGER HAVE AN INCREASING FOREIGN DEBT"
For more details on the Sellout of Australia's Assets, see
AusBuy Reports and AusBuy Guides
Tony asks: If you find that you agree with a message presented on this site, please print it out: photocopy it until you run out of paper, then give a copy to each of your friends and neighbours not yet lucky enough to have the Internet !
and Dills for Politicians in Australia
Pollies up to their curly tails in the trough of our tax money
If you read the READER'S DIGEST January 1997 you may have seen "Australia's Outrageous Parliamentary Pensions" by Paul Rafaele. This article gives an insight into just how low our thieving politicians will stoop to line their own pockets, while they are in parliament and after.
Convicted rapist Keith Wright was sprung before he was eligible for superannuation. His mates worked the law so he got his loot before he got his deserts. Wright paid $50,000 into the super scheme from 1984 to 1993 (about $5,500 per year). Keith is now eligible for an annual pension of $43,000 a year for life (fully indexed to inflation of course). If he lives another 30 years he will have raked in $1,290,000 in return for his $50,000 investment.
Joan Kirner got $240,000 super payout and claimed another $360,000 more citing ill health. When the $360,000 was knocked back she already had a cushy government job raking in $104,000 a year in the Employment Services Authority.
Michael Lavarch paid in $82,000 in nine years. He and his wife will reap about $2,500,000.
These cases illustrate the cozy superannuation arrangements our parliamentarians have made for themselves. And what service does the nation get from them in return?
Instead of warning the Australian people that we were being pushed around by multinational corporations, swindled by international bankers, dictated to by the UN, and bought out by foreigners, the political parties that have governed Australia for the past thirty years have actually co-operated in the process.
An Independent Paliamentarian's view of travel rorts:
In a speech that Australia's mass media largely managed to avoid reporting, a parliamentarian elected independent of the major parties had this to say:
"Too much of our country has been sold, indeed much of it has been given away.
"You may ask what is our government doing?
"Well for the last ten days they have tried to score points on each other by each trying to label the other as the bigger thief in the travel rorts scandal.
"While I would be the first to acknowledge the need for accountability, that has not been the substance of the debate. Rather it has all focussed on petty political point scoring that has shown both Liberal and Labor for the distracted and self seeking traitors they are.
: "It is worth noting one Sydney Newspaper's report which cited that while this bullying and bickering was going on, our foreign debt rose 765 million, 540 small businesses went broke, 1500 full-time jobs disappeared, 60 women died of breast cancer and 58 Australians committed suicide.
"Ask what the Liberals and Labor are doing.
"I can tell you they are doing nothing other than looking after themselves and their pensions.
"The government tells us we are lucky to have so much foreign investment because of the jobs the multinationals provide, but is that the future the government approves of for our children - that they will work for the profit of foreigners - will that be all they have?
"There is an argument for foreign investment, there is no argument for foreign control.
"We have so much in this country, and yet our government trades away our inheritance for a place on the International Stage.
"We have nearly a million people unemployed, probably another million under-employed and over seven hundred thousand children living in families where neither parent has a job but despite this and our rising foreign debt, our government can still find 1.4 billion dollars to give away in foreign aid just in this year alone.
"We must put Economic Nationalism back on the agenda.
"The so called level playing field of free trade cannot be successfully applied between countries with vastly different standards of living.
"If the government insists on pursuing these policies of Economic Rationalism our standard of living will continue to fall and unemployment will continue to rise.
"Australia cannot compete with cheap foreign workforces.
"Australian workers cannot compete with countries whose workers are paid forty cents an hour or a few dollars a day.
"Without Nationalistic policies to foster and protect Australian Industry and Manufacturing the Australian worker will be a thing of the past and any suggestion they will be retrained into high technology jobs is a nonsense; those jobs don't exist, and won't exist.
"We must come to terms with the fact we need a diversity of industry to provide the types of jobs that will cover the varying levels of skill.
"We must acknowledge that not every person will go to university, and if they did, there simply wouldn't be enough tertiary skills related jobs to go around.
"The current policy of educating people into jobs doesn't work because the jobs don't exist.
"All we are doing is making education a competitive component for jobseekers to contend with, as jobs that were once taken by high school graduates are now the property of those with university degrees.
"Many of our unemployed simply do courses that lead to other courses, and nowhere else.
"Unemployment is not just a single issue but in fact the issue that causes so much of the stress and strain in our society leading to substance abuse, crime, family breakdown and suicide.
"The long term unemployed, young people in particular, are faced with such hopelessness they turn to avenues of escape secure citizens would never consider.
"We must re-vitalise apprenticeships and make young Australians understand it is OK to be a carpenter or a mechanic or a plumber or to pursue any trade.
"It is OK to be bank teller or a council worker or a bus driver.
"The most important thing is to have a job because that is a start.
"You must have a start and from there how far you go is up to you, but you must have a start.
"The dole will lead nowhere. A job will allow you a base from which to launch your life.
"More and more Australian companies are being sold or moving overseas because they can no longer compete.
"This has to stop.
"Those lost jobs cannot be replaced under current government policies - policies that have devastated our country and ruined countless Australians' lives for at least the last twenty five years.
"We must get Australia working again, and we can only do this by re-juvinating industry, manufacturing and the rural sector.
"We must get off the level playing field as we are the only ones on it.
"The rest of the world is laughing at us as we sell them our land, give them our jobs, and then send them foreign aid.
"What fools we have been; what fools we are."
"Good payment is needed to attract capable people into parliament"
Whenever remuneration for politicians is mentioned they are quick to claim the necessity for paying well to attract capable people into parliament. Well, we have been paying well for long enough, and the only
capable people dills we have attracted to parliament have been the same ones who have destroyed our manufacturing industries, run down our defences, sold our assets, exported our jobs, and mortgaged us to foreign financiers to get enough money to maintain an illusion that we have never had it so good.
How gullible they must think we are !
These people steal by holding up their hand to vote for unearned income. A tribe of blindly loyal party faithful keep preselecting an endless supply of knaves and thieves for the major parties that have monopolised both sides of parliament for too long. Are the party faithful paying any attention to the performance of their candidates in parliament or simply being fooled by their charisma and rhetoric? Until we wake these dills and show them what has happened to a once great and well governed nation they will keep doing what they have always done and we will keep on getting what we get now.
Deserting Labor, Liberals & Nationals
Leaving these groups is not "deserting". They left you years ago.
Tony Pitt says:
"The major parties have been stacking branches, rigging preselection and promoting incompetents for so long there are few left with guts or brains. The top is so rotten the parties can never become good again without a substantial period out of office during which they reflect on their mistakes.
"The branches and members of all major parties have a lot of thinking to do. I would suggest they write to head office and say, "If the party does not stop the level playing field rubbish, multiculturalism, Aborigine guilt industry, sex-discrimination, privatisation, globalism and disarmament nonsense right now, we are leaving and we're taking the whole branch with us."
"Be prepared to leave because the Howard, Costello, Fischer, Crean, Despoia crew cannot change direction. They just do as they are told. The policies are made overseas. Everyone involved knows that but won't admit it.
"Those in control of the parties today are the exact opposite of the leaders they had back in the good old days not so many years ago. If you can remember back that far, you will know that was the time when the Liberal, Country, and Labor parties were building the Snowy Mountains scheme, the Commonwealth Bank, our national airlines, railways, telephone and electricity systems that the modern day vandals have been selling.
Tony asks: If you find that you agree with a message presented on this site, please print it out: photocopy it until you run out of paper, then give a copy to each of your friends and neighbours not yet lucky enough to have the Internet !
Any refugees who flee to Australia and who would tell the locals whatit is like to live under the socialist regimes that we fund with our foreign aid, are kept in concentration camps, here in Australia. Even after they try jumping to their death to get attention the commos inthe public service "repatriate" them back to their communist mates to be killed. Does this remind you of post World War II where we and our allies sent a million Russian refugees back to die in the gulags? The same politicians play the same games today.
The refugees trained in sedition and sabotage are given open passage,cushy government jobs, security clearances, housing assistance,education advantage, instant citizenship, and anything else our Marxist government can dream up in aid. It all comes out of our pocket. We get nothing when we are in trouble. The KGB agents are cultivated into the shooting organisations where their ability and enthusiasm is unquestioned. They get to be the executive. That is why the various shooting organisation will not fight gun control.After serving in the RAAF for twenty years and in Headquarters Support Command I can tell you the stooges are there and they are elevated to key positions. Any politician who tells you otherwise is a liar, a traitor, or just naive.
(A simple, nontechnical, beginner's book of the true legal functions of the
Queen, GovernorGeneral, State Governors, Parliament, Parliamentarians,
and the People.)
Research Analyst in Constitutional Law, and formerly Federal Member for Griffith in
the House of Representatives.
BY ARTHUR A CHRESBY
YOUR WILL BE DONE
Research Analyst in Constitutional Law, and formerly Federal Member for Griffith in the
House of Representatives.
THIS BOOK IS REPRINTED IN MEMORY OF THE AUTHOR
ARTHUR A. CHRESBY
IN APPRECIATION FOR HIS 53 YEARS OF RESEARCH
AND STUDY INTO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
What is the correct relationship of an elector to a
Member of Parliament? Page 1
What is the legal function and duty of a
Parliamentarian? Page 5
What is the legal function and duty of a Minister of
the Crown? Page 8
What is Parliament, and its function? Page 11
What is the true legal role of the Queen and Her
Vice Regal Representatives? Page 15
What is a political party? Page 17
Is there a practical democratic alternative to the
party system? Page 19
A few thoughts on extra Constitutional safeguards
for the electors. Page 24
APPENDIX 1 Page 27
APPENDIX 11 Page 28
SAMPLE PETITION TO FEDERAL MEMBER Page 29
TESTIMONIAL LETTER Page 30
In the great controversy on the alleged need for constitutional reform and the replacement of the monarchy with an Australian republic, there seems to be an increasing airing of the views of those apparently bent on destroying the faith of the people in their established parliamentary institutions; that the real truths, safeguards and functions of our Commonwealth and State Constitutions are being lost to the knowledge of the nation.
This work is an attempt to put forward those truths, a sort of primer of Constitutional Law; to bring to public notice the true legal functions and duties of the institution of the Monarchy, the offices of Governor-General and State Governors, Ministers of the Crown, Federal and State Parliamentarians; to reveal the correct legal relationship between the electors and parliamentarians; to show what can be done under both Commonwealth and State Constitutions to bring Ministers and politicians to a full sudden stop ". . . for reprimand or dismissal, without having to wait for a general election . .
It may be contended that the people have been denied the above-mentioned knowledge; that our schools, colleges and universities have failed to inform, as have the new media at large.
The history of parliament and politics in Australia shows that no political party, few, If any, politicians, and almost none of the constitutional and political textbook writers has published this information, for it is knowledge that, once grasped by the people, means the end of party political control over the voice and votes of politicians, and the elimination of party political dictatorship over the machinery of parliament.
Those who would seriously attempt to dispute the contents of this book are advised that the law courts are open to them to do so. Any other form of denial would have no legal validity.
Because this is being written for the information of Mr., Mrs. and Miss Everyman, the writer has tried to keep the contents as simple as possible, to avoid legal jargon, and to give quotations only where it is deemed essential to clarify a legal point.
It is stressed that the sole purpose of this work is to show the Australian People what their true Constitutional powers are, and how they can lawfully use those powers to obtain the results they want their elected parliamentarians to produce, e.g.,
"I want my dollar to buy more tomorrow than it does today!"
Readers are invited to keep the following legally unarguable fact in mind:
In the final analysis it is the Constitutions and Laws of the Commonwealth and the States, and the High Court interpretations of such, that determines what we can or cannot do in our daily lives. It is, therefore, to those Constitutions, Laws, and Court interpretations that we must continuously look for guidance and succour in our living, work and play, and not to the dissembling party politicians.
The writer hopes that the following pages will open up the way to such constitutional and legal guidance and succour.
This Introduction cannot be completed without acknowledging the debt, which this writer owes to Bart Marney of the blue ribbon provincial daily newspaper, "The Toowoomba Chronicle" (Queensland), without whose many objective criticisms and encouragement this book might never have been written.
Arthur A. Chresby
WHAT IS THE CORRECT RELATIONSHIP OF AN
ELECTOR TO A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT?
Both by Constitutional and Statute law an elector has no legal right, whatever, to abuse, intimidate or demand anything of his Member of Parliament, State or Federal, or of his State Senators.
Any such abuse, intimidation or demand, would enable a Parliamentarian to take court action against an elector for attempting to use unlawful pressure to force the Member or Senator to act contrary to their judicially defined function and duty.
As an elector you have a right, and a legal duty, at election time to vote for the candidate of your choice. Indeed, so long as you obtain a ballot paper in a lawful manner and place it in the ballot box you cannot be compelled to vote for the candidates on that ballot paper and may, if you wish, cast your vote against all names on that paper by neatly crossing them out. As voting is legally secret there is, at present, no legal way of stopping you from doing so.
Although such an action is classed as 'casting an informal vote", you have legally signified that none of the candidates on that ballot paper meet with your satisfaction and have, therefore, lawfully cast your vote against all of them. If a majority of the electors were to vote "informal" it would force a fresh election and bring forth fresh candidates, thus indicating that the electors were casting their votes with care.
Political parties, of course, would cry that the electors were wasting their votes; that electors were disenfranchising themselves. But this is only party propaganda, because no party got any value out of your informal vote, and that is all that concerns parties: they need your vote to grab for power.
Once the election is over that is the end of ballot paper voting until the next election. However, under both Federal and State Constitutions and Statute laws you have certain Implied legal duties and obligations
The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence, is to make laws for the people, with the clear Implication that those laws will reflect the WILL of the people on the subject matter of those laws.
By those legal implications you have a lawful duty and obligation to keep your Members and Senators fully informed about what your WILL is upon any issue or matter that comes before them in their Houses of Parliament, or that should come before them.
It is only when you fulfil that lawful duty and obligation that your Member and Senators can properly fulfil their judicially defined function and duty in their houses of Parliament. If you do not fulfil your lawful duty and obligation, if you do not keep your Members and Senators fully informed of your will on any issue, then you cannot blame them for what they do. You have only your own laziness or indifference to blame.
How do you correctly inform your Members and Senators of your WILL? It is so simple that only laziness and indifference ON YOUR PART stops It from working. Yes, it is so very simple, and here is an example: Suppose, for instance, you believe that income tax should be halved and sales tax completely eliminated. You write, in this case, AN INDIVIDUAL letter to your Federal Member, and each one of your State Senators, such as this:
1know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament.
IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to have income tax halved and sales tax removed completely.
(insert your full name, address and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.)
Should your Member or Senators try to sidestep (and some of them are extremely adept at doing this) or tell you what their party is or is not doing, you simply write back and say:
1 repeat that, in accordance with my lawful obligation to keep you informed of MY WILL, 1 again inform you that it is MY WILL that you take immediate action to have income tax halved and sales tax removed completely.
Don't enter into written argument with a politician, for many politicians are past masters in the art of avoiding that which they don't want to face up to, and become experts in manipulating words to their benefit.
Although the majority of politicians would never publicly admit it, what worries them most irrespective of majority or party is the percentage trend in electorate thinking that is shown by the number of simple straight letters clearly expressing THE WILL of the elector signing the letter.
To illustrate the above point further: Opinion polls claim to reveal THE TREND of public thinking BY ASKING SIMPLE QUESTIONS of a given number of people selected at random, and, more often than not, the trend shown is reasonably accurate. BUT NOTE THAT THE TREND IS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE OPINIONS of people, and people can change their opinions as often as they change their clothes.
The principle of percentage trends in electorate thinking as shown by the above simple straight MY WILL letter Is an entirely different thing, and certainly leads to greater accuracy, for politicians know from experience that if one of their electors sits down to write such a simple " IT IS MY WILL" letter, then that elector is not expressing a mere opinion, but knows what he wants and says so in a nononsense way. It is doubly impressed upon the politician's mind if, after trying to side track the elector, he still gets back a straight "IT IS MY WILL
Experience of the various techniques used in opinion polls, and the evaluation of same, reveals that one such "IT IS MY WILL letter indicates the mathematical probability that a MINIMUM of four (4) other electors are of the same conviction but have not written.
Even the least intelligent politician, where his Seat Is concerned, can multiply by four (4) the number of such 'MY WILL letters he receives, and if he gets two or three thousand such letters he will know that he is going to come up with a mathematical stomachtwisting figure showing that he is not in tune with his electorate.
Selfpreservation, even with a partyridden politician, is always of the highest motivating priority to that politician, and, as the long experience of the former Queensland Parliamentarian, Senator lan Wood, has proved, time and again, a political party thinks many times when trying to remove a determined straight Parliamentarian who has electorate thinking behind him. (Senator Wood fulfilled his judicially defined function and duty and refused, consistently, to bend to party pressures.)
On a subject like the drastic reduction of income tax, and removal of sales tax, it is obviously something on which most people will have strong convictions, not mere opinions. Thus, it requires only a few ordinary people to get together in their various electorates and, after writing their own "MY WILL letters get out amongst friends, relatives, acquaintances and others in their own electorate inviting them all to write such "MY WILL" letters to their Federal Member and State Senators. Such determined ordinary people also have relatives and friends in other electorates and can invite them to do likewise.
Thus, in no time, the work of, say 3, 4, 5 or 6 people can spread like wildfire through the electorate, especially when most people are incensed over one thing. To get two or three thousand individually signed "MY WILL" letters is not a hard task for such ordinary determined people.
It must never be forgotten that ordinary people have the legal privilege, if they wish to exercise it, of quietly approaching relatives, friends, acquaintances and others inviting them to write such " MY WILL" letters to their Member and Senators. It requires no committees, no resolutions, no street marching, no formation of groups, bodies or associations with all sorts of names and titles. No constitutions, no minutes, no wasting of hours in fruitless arguing and discussions, no presidents, secretaries or treasurers.
All that is required is that an individual with a determination to act lawfully to right or alter something he doesn't like, and with the initiative to do so, is to write his "MY WILL" letter, show others and encourage them to do likewise. There are a multitude of issues upon which people have strong convictions and the simple "MY WILL" letter is their lawful simple way of telling their M.P.
Don't argue that it will not work, or that people are stupid. If you feel strongly enough about something, don't just moan and talk about it, write your "MY WILL" letters. IT IS YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to do so, not someone else, nor those never identified "THEY OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT". You have to be your own "they".
It is stressed again: it is your legal privilege, and your lawful duty, to encourage others, peacefully and quietly, in the manner outlined in this Chapter. A Parliamentarian, armed with the written proof of the 'WILL" of his electors, upon any issue, can completely ignore party pressures and set about faithfully fulfilling his judicially defined legal function and legal duty. He is free to be a Parliamentarian and not, as at present in most cases, a mere party yesman. THE "MY WILL" LETTER IS A LEGAL DEMONSTRATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
When your Members of Parliament, State and Federal, do something that pleases you WRITE AND TELL THEM SO, as Members get plenty of abusive letters and extremely few courteous ones. If a Member or Senator knows that he is the centre of watchfulness from his area at all times he is left with no alternative than to carry out his judicially defined function and duty, no atter the protests and pressures of his party.
Thus, Politicians, secure in the knowledge of written electorate support, possessed of the written "MY WILL", is freed from control of the party manipulators, for the party has lost control over his voice and vote on all issues on which the electorate has expressed its WILL. Wise politicians would do well to continuously seek the written WILL of all their electors on every issue and proposed legislation. After all they do have offices and a secretary in their electorate, whilst Federal Members also have Research Officers, so they have no excuse for not organising to seek the electors "WILL" before casting their votes in their House of Parliament.
To sum up this Chapter:
It is your legal duty and obligation, and yours alone, to keep your Members and Senators fully informed, at all times, of your 'WILL". That is your true lawful relationship with your Members and your Senators.
WHAT IS THE LEGAL FUNCTION AND DUTY
OF A PARLIAMENTARIAN?
While there are many British and Australian judicial interpretations on precisely what IS the true legal function and duty of a Member of Parliament it will be sufficient, here, to give two such. Heavy print in these two quotations has been added by this writer to stress the points involved.
The first is from a British case (for those of legal mind see A.C. 1910, at p. 110) where Lord Shaw of Dumfermline stated, amongst other things:
"Parliament is summoned by the Sovereign to advise His Majesty freely. By the nature of the case it is implied that coercion, restraint, or money payment which Is the price of voting at the bidding of others, destroys or imperils that function of freedom of advice which is fundamental in the very constitution of Parliament
The second is from a High Court case ('Horne v Barber' (1920) 27 C.L.R. p. 500):
'When a man becomes a Member of Parliament, he undertakes high public duties. These duties are inseparable from the position: he cannot retain the honour and divest himself of the duties. One of the duties is that of watching on behalf of the general community the conduct of the Executive, of criticising, and, if necessary, of calling it to account in the constitutional way by censure from his place in Parliament censure which, if sufficiently supported, means removal from office. That Is the whole essence of responsible government, which is the keystone of our political system, and is the main constitutional safeguard the community possesses. The effective discharge of that duty is necessarily left to the Member's conscience and the judgement of his electors, but the law will not sanction or support the creation of any position of a Member of Parliament where his own personal interest may lead him to act prejudicially to the public Interest by weakening (to say the least) his sense of obligation of due watchfulness, criticism, and censure of the administration. "
(The above judicial decision on the duty and function of a Member of Parliament surely gives rise to the following legal question:
In debating and voting on strict party lines in his House of the Parliament is not a Member of the dominant party in serious breach of the law, and in contempt of the Court, for how can a member obey strict party rules and High Court decisions at one and the same time?)
More simply put, these and other interpretations mean:
(a) THE SOLE LEGAL FUNCTION of a Member of Parliament IS TO FREELY ADVISE the Queen in the government of the Country, according to the clearly expressed will of the people, on any matter or thing, i.e., his sole legal function is to legislate.
(b) In legislating, his SOLE LEGAL DUTY is that, like a judge entering his court, he shall enter his House of the Parliament, each official Sitting day, and with judgelike dignity and decorum, he shall honestly, impartially, and searchingly examine all matters that properly may be placed before him and, with unbiased judgement, vote according to his conscience and his sense of legal responsibility.
(c) No Member of Parliament has any legal function or duty outside of his House of Parliament, unless that House officially details him otherwise.
(d) It is no legal part of his function or duty to interview Ministers of the Crown or departmental officers for and on behalf of his electors or others.
(e) Such interviewing is purely a social and moral obligation that flows from his public status; obligations, which can be, and are, performed by other nonparliamentary public figures without monetary rewards, either by salary or allowances.
(f) There is no constitutionallegal authority for paying Members, out of Crown revenue, for the performance of purely social responsibilities, whether that payment be a parliamentary salary and allowances, or just allowances State and Federal Parliamentary Allowance Acts notwithstanding.
Of necessity, the following crucial questions must arise out of the aforestated judicial interpretations:
(a) Who, or what, is it that deliberately prevents backbench Members of Parliament from faithfully carrying out their sole legal function and duty, as judicially defined?
(b) If it is claimed that legal authority exists then, precisely, what Section of the Constitutions grant constitutional power to pay Members of Parliament salaries, out of Crown revenue, for not faithfully carrying out their judicially defined legal function and legal duty?
(c) Where is the precise Constitutional power to pay allowances, out of Crown revenue, to backbench Members of Parliament for the performance of judicially defined PURELY SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS of interviewing Ministers of the Crown and departmental Officers, for and on behalf of constituents?
(For the legallyminded, it is suggested that the going would be extremely rough, if not impossible, to claim the "implied and incidental powers" of the Constitutions as the authority for such payments.)
More than ninety years of party political control over our seven Australian Parliaments reveal that It Is only on very rare occasions that Parliamentary party leaders agree to allow their backbench Members to have a free, or "conscience", vote. On all other occasions' party leaders and party controllers, DEMAND ABSOLUTE LOYALTY to the party, and INSIST on voting BEING ON PARTY LINES.
This raises the further crucial question of whether, under State Criminal Codes and the Commonwealth Crimes Act, Parliamentary party leaders, and controllers, are not severally and individually guilty of deliberately breaching those codes and statutes, i.e., of being guilty of conspiring to prevent backbench Members of Parliament from fulfilling their judicially defined legal function and duty in their Houses of Parliament?
It also raises the basic question, touched on page 4, of whether or not backbench Members of Parliament themselves violated their legal duty to the People by freely allowing themselves to be coerced by their leaders and party into not correctly fulfilling their judicially defined legal function and duty and, of a consequence, thereby rendering their Parliamentary Seat vacant by an act of overt or covert conspiracy.
WHAT IS THE LEGAL FUNCTION AND DUTY
OF A MINISTER OF THE CROWN?
Over the years you have been encouraged to believe, quite incorrectly, that:
Ministers of the Crown are the government.
Legally they are not.
The party with the greatest support in Parliament has the right to become the government and to appoint its own Ministers to govern the State or Commonwealth.
Legally this not so.
Ministers of the Crown are responsible to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the People.
Legally this is not so.
The Ministers of the Grown, or government, have been elected with a mandate from the People; a mandate to carry out the entire policy and platform of the party (platforms which the majority of electors have never seen, let alone studied),
Legally this is quite false.
Not one of the above beliefs could withstand constitutional challenge in the Courts. They are wholly and solely political party propaganda without one scintilla of Constitutional and legal truth. They are party political practices developed to suit political parties and have no legal connection with the Commonwealth and State Constitutions. They are falsely called "conventions of the constitution".
Ministers of the Crown ARE NOT and LEGALLY NEVER CAN BE the government, for, as will be shown in later Chapters, the TRUE LEGAL GOVERNMENT is nonelective, residing in perpetuity in the institution of the Monarchy and is exercised, for the Monarchy, by the Governor-General in the Commonwealth, and State Governors in the States. That is precisely, and legally, what the words "GovernorGeneral' and "Governor" mean.
ONE WHO LEGALLY GOVERNS
Ministers of the Crown are not legally nor constitutionally responsible to the Houses of the Parliament nor to the people. They are solely responsible to the Queen through the offices of GovernorGeneral, and or State Governors, as the case may be.
Consequently, Ministers of the Crown can have no mandate of any kind from the people, neither can the political party which claims, quite legally wrongly, to appoint them. Any such claims are pure party propaganda with no legal basis whatever.
Irrespective of whether they be Federal or State Ministers of the Crown they have precisely ONE LEGAL FUNCTION and one LEGAL DUTY:
(a) Their legal function is to administer departments of State on behalf of the Queen and in accordance with parliamentary legislation relating to their specific department.
(b) For this legal function they are paid salaries out of Crown revenue and, like other departmental officers, they are paid servants of the Crown, excepting that other paid public servants are generally secure in their appointment until retirement whilst Ministers are wholly dependent upon the Monarchy (through its Representatives) and can be dismissed at will by that Monarchy.
(c)The legal DUTY of the Ministers of the Crown is that, by virtue of being Ministers, they become AUTOMATICALLY honorary advisors, to the Queen through Her Representatives.
(d) As honorary advisors they AUTOMATICALLY are Members of the Executive Council (State or Federal) which is set up by the Constitutions to give advice to the Queen, or legal government of the Commonwealth or the State.
As already stressed above, Ministers of the Crown are the paid legal servants of the permanent government, and their legal responsibility is directly, and can only be, to that legal government and to no one else.
On the other hand, the permanent legal government or Monarchy IS WHOLLY AND SOLELY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE, AND TO NO ONE ELSE. But this vital knowledge has, for party political purposes, been carefully kept from the Australian People. This is why the People do not realise, and have no real knowledge of, the full significance of what the institution of the Monarchy legally means in their daily lives. This will be explained in further Chapters.
A Prime Minister, or Premier, or Minister, who claims to speak as the government, without first stating that he "is authorised by Her Majesty's GovernmentCommonwealth or State as the case may be is, whether he realises it or not, making a legally false claim.
Under Commonwealth and State Constitutions ALL MINISTERS of the Crown STAND EQUAL TO EACH OTHER IN LAW, none is subordinate to the other; all are equal before Her Majesty. Thus, in cold hard legal law, no Prime Minister or State Premier has any legal power of control over the other ministers, unless a specific Act of Parliament gives him that control for specific purposes AND ONLY for that purpose.
The correct legal role of a Minister of the Crown is that he can only speak as a Minister of State in relation to his department. He speaks as the paid public head administrator of his department and in no other capacity.
Under the nonlegal practices of party politics, Ministers are in consistent breach of their true legal role when they claim to speak for "the government'' or as "my government".
WHAT IS PARLIAMENT, AND ITS FUNCTION?
Most of us use our words loosely, sometimes particularly so. Thus, we drift into a habit of using words and phrases without stopping to think what they really mean and convey.
Take the word "Parliament"... We all say that "Parliament is meeting" or sitting", or that "So and so is going to Parliament" ' At first sight it may seem a mere splitting of hairs to state that, except when both Houses of the Parliament (Queensland has but one House) and the Queen, or GovernorGeneral or State Governor, is present together, it is a physical and legal impossibility for a Parliament to meet.
This is because, in Constitutional law, Parliament both legally and physically consists of the Queen or Her Representative, i.e., the GovernorGeneral in the Commonwealth and State Governor in a State and both Houses of the Parliament, in Queensland ONE House of Parliament.
Thus, Parliament, as such, does NOT debate anything. Parliament is solely and simply a lawmaking machine, and nothing else, The pivot of that machine is the institution of the Monarchy, or in Australia in the Monarch's absence the GovernorGeneral in the Commonwealth and State Governors in the States. This will be explained further in the next Chapter.
It is common practice, when commenting on party political control over the operation of the parliamentary mechanism, to refer to the 'Westminster System. Indeed, in the interparty confrontations and power struggles, the phrase 'the Westminster System' is hurled, with explosive expletives, that the other side is destroying that 'democratic system'.
Critical analysis reveals that that phrase has no legal relationship what ever to strict Constitutional law, the law that actually binds each and every one of us in our daily lives. (Here the Reader is asked to refer back to the third last paragraph of the 'Introduction' to this book).
It is extremely doubtful if the users of the phrase 'the Westminster System', themselves, have any clear understanding of its true meaning. Simply put it means the practices and usages of the various British political parties in controlling, and using, the legal machinery of the British Parliament in the interest, and for the sole purposes, of party political Ideologies and power struggles.
The phrase, 'the Westminster System' has nothing to do with the legal law of the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and six States of Australia. It is only sacrosanct to Australian politicians, and parties, where it can be publicly used to suit their propaganda purposes. Its use is completely hypocritical and must be exposed for the absolute legal falsehood that it is.
To operate Parliament we have four (4) distinct and separate areas of legal responsibility (in Queensland only three because it has only one House of Parliament):
(1) The electors, who have a duty and obligation as set out in Chapter 1.
(2) The socalled, and mistakenlycalled, Lower House, i.e., the House of Representatives in the Commonwealth, the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the House of Assembly in Tasmania.
(3) The mistakenlycalled Upper House, i.e., the Senate, and the Legislative Council in each State, excepting Queensland.
(4) The Queen, or Her Representative, as above mentioned.
What is the function and duty of each of these four areas of Constitutional and legal responsibility?
As pointed out In Chapter 1 , the electors have a specified legal duty and a lawful obligation.
The legal duty is to vote at election time.
The lawful obligation is to keep your State and Federal Members and your State Senators fully informed, at all times, about what is your WILL.
It has always been a fundamental principle of British and Australian law that, within the limits of statute and where applicable common law, YOU, and YOU ALONE, are solely responsible for the preservation of what you believe to be your lawful inherent freedoms and privileges; that if you are too lazy and indifferent to exercise the lawful avenues open to you to protect and retain those freedoms and privileges provided always that you demonstrate your responsibilities with respect to those freedoms and privileges then you have nobody but yourself to blame for your laziness and indifference.
(b)THE SOCALLED "LOWER HOUSE"
IF the Members of the, socalled, Lower House strictly carry out their judicially defined function and duty, then that House is a place where the WILL of the people is given effect to in the form of "A Bill For An Act do so and so, and in the formulation of that Bill the Members of that House are constantly before the "bar of public conviction", not mere opinion.
(c)THE HOUSE OF SECOND THOUGHTS
IF the Members of the, so called, Upper House strictly carry out their judicially defined function and duty, then that House performs its legal responsibility of also being a House of second thought; of being a countercheck to ensure that the clearly expressed written WILL of the electors is correctly translated into legislation.
In strict constitutional law both Houses act, or would act, if it were not for party interference, as a constant check upon each other as a safeguard against the misuse of the laid down Constitutional powers of each House.
(Of course, this rarely happens because of the constant party political control exerted over the voice and votes of the Members of each House. Where it does happen, it does so only because no party is in control of both Houses and, as practical experience demonstrates, in the final analysis opposing parties are primarily concerned in trying to destroy each other.)
(d) THE QUEEN
If the Australian People only knew it, the Queen is the final legal protector of the whole of the people, without regard to party, race, colour or creed; a final check against the peculiarities of the operation of party politics in the control over the machinery of Parliament, and of the voices and votes of politicians.
No Bill for an Act can become law without the Royal Assent being given; an assent that can be withdrawn within twelve months of its being given. This final Royal check enables the people, if they only knew It, to determine whether or not they wanted the Act and to ask the Queen to withdraw the Royal Assent if they did not, or to request that the legislation be amended, according to their WILL.
Even after 12 months, for there is no actual constitutional time limit, the electors have the legal power to ask Her Majesty to resubmit any Act of Parliament for amendment or repeal according to their WILL. It is also the legal privilege of the people to ask the Queen to have any legislation, that the People WILL, brought down and passed in both Houses of the Parliament.
Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, then the Queen has the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how politicians may protest.
The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is the unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their choosing, may directly request of Her.
This would also explain the reason for the campaign to replace the monarchy with an Australian republic. Forgetting their judicially defined function and duty, many politicians, as well as political parties and others, like to believe that their party shall have the final determination of political power and what the people shall have.
TO SUM UP THIS CHAPTER:
Parliament is only a machine to make laws in accordance with the written WILL of the people on the subject matter of the law.
The Houses of Parliament are both complementary to, as well as being a check on, each other in their legal functioning.
The Queen is the final check and will, at all times, give assent to the clearly expressed written WILL of the people, irrespective of parties and politicians.
The function of the electors, apart from voting, is constantly and clearly to inform their Parliamentarians of their WILL on any subject or issue.
If the Houses of Parliament disregard the written WILL of the people on any matter, then the people have the legal power, and responsibility, to directly inform the Queen that THAT legislation is NOT in accordance with their written WILL, and request Her to have it annulled or amended, accordingly.
With respect to the socalled Lower House of Parliament it is the legal privilege of the people to directly ask the Queen, through Her Vice Regal Representative concerned, to dissolve that House so that they, the people, may proceed to the election of a fresh set of Parliamentarians.
WHAT IS THE TRUE LEGAL ROLE OF THE QUEEN AND HER VICE REGAL REPRESENTATIVES?
Over the last few years, as referred to in previous Chapters, there has surfaced the clear lines of what used to be a more subtle underground campaign to mislead the Australian People in accepting the concept that a republic is far superior in every way for Australia; that the monarchy is an outdated medieval idea, having no logical place in modern thinking, whatever that may mean, no real relationship with this nation, and no real power or authority in our Parliamentary system.
YET NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! As stated in Chapter 4:
Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, the Queen has the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how politicians may protest.
The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is the unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their choosing, may directly request of Her.
Put even more simply: the only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy, and the offices of the GovernorGeneral and State Governors:
Is to give the people what the people ask for, Not what others think the people ought to have.
If the Australian people are too lazy and Indifferent to ask for what they want, then they can blame only themselves if politicians and political parties impose their own ideologies on them.
It is legally unchallengable that the party system, with its direct and indirect powers of manipulating politicians and people, has quite illegally striven to drive a wedge between the people and the final source of all their Constitutional and legal powers, i.e., the institution of the Monarchy, as a prelude to transferring the unlimited power of that Monarchy into the hands of the controllers and manipulators of political parties, including the final party political control over the Armed Forces of the nation; a control which, at present, is legally vested in the Queen to ensure that, where directly expressed to Her, the WILL of the people shall at all times prevail.
In Chapter 3 it was stressed that Ministers of the Crown are not, and never legally can be, the "Government" of the State or Commonwealth: that the Government was legally nonelective, and that an expansion of that statement would be given in this Chapter.
Both the written Constitution of the Commonwealth and the socalled unwritten Constitutions of the six Australian States vest the "government exclusively in the institution of the Monarchy, to be legally exercisable in almost every case by the GovernorGeneral in the Commonwealth and the State Governors in the States.
Thus, constitutionally and legally, the Government CANNOT BE ELECTED for it remains permanently embodied in the institution of the Monarchy. It can "govern" only according to the direct or indirect expressed WILL of the people, for that is its legal role as the protector of the people.
The legal WILL of the people can only be expressed in two ways: indirectly through elected Parliamentarians by 'MY WILL" letters or directly through the Queen's Vice Regal Representatives likewise. There is no other legal way that that WILL can be expressed. Electing a candidate to Parliament does NOT express it. All that an election does is to put a person into a House of Parliament whom the electors believe will faithfully carry out the written WILL of the people as and when so expressed.
Over the years the party system has cleverly hidden the fact that the people have the legal freedom at all times to express their WILL direct to the Queen, no matter what politicians and others may try to claim.
The Queen is the permanent "government" with a perpetual "mandate" to govern according to the clearly expressed WILL of the people. It is obvious, then, that no political party can lawfully occupy the Constitutional seat reserved in perpetuity for the Monarchy, no matter what political scientists, textbook writers, academics, politicians, political parties and other theorists may claim.
This writer codified the powers of the Monarchy back in 1941 in the following sentence, and it still stands to be challenged before the High Court, if legal minds feel competent to do so:"THE POWER, PREROGATIVES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE MONARCHY, THE GOVERNORGENERAL, AND STATE GOVERNORS, ARE THE BRAKES WHICH THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE CAN APPLY AT ANY HOUR (without having to wait for any general election) TO BRING MINISTERS AND POLITICIANSTO A COMPLETE AND SUDDEN STOP, SO AS TO RECEIVE FROM THEM, THE ELECTORS ' EITHER FRESH INSTRUCTION, REPRIMAND, OR DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE.
WHAT IS A POLITICAL PARTY?
If you will but pause to think deeply and seriously you will find that a political party, despite its propaganda, constitutions, fine words and phrases, eventually becomes an organisation in the form of a pyramid with final power in the apex of that pyramid. The mass at the base being subject to manipulation by those in the apex, or by those who control the apex from outside of party organisation.
It is not an unreasonable contention that those who finally win through to the apex of the pyramid, both organisational and parliamentary, have to become manipulators of their fellows if they wish to hold their place of power at the top.
A political party, by the very nature of its pyramidal structure, is not, and cannot be, a democratic organisation, and the many years of party politics in Australia since Federation, proves that it is not democratic, despite beautifully worded constitutions, platforms, policies, and philosophies.
Here it might be wise to pause for a moment to define that much used, and much abused, word "democracy". Consensus has it that "democracy" is "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." However, whilst Lincoln's definition, with its tremendous emotive tones, sounds and reads well, experience has shown that in application this concept produces the opposite result "Government of the many by the few in the apex.
It is suggested here that a far more practical definition of "democracy" would be that it is:
The administration of the affairs of the country to produce the specific results that the people request, not what politicians promise they will give if elected to power.
In the light of the long experience of Australian party politics, it becomes indisputable that political parties are incompatible with this new definition; that the continued domination and control of the Parliamentary machine by party politics must inevitably end in the wrecking of that machine, and the transfer of power to party manipulators. The evidence for this is becoming more painfully obvious each day.
The Australian history of parties demonstrates that every new party comes into being on the claim that existing parties have become dictatorships and that the new party is the only party capable of governing in the name of democracy. However, once its candidates enter a House of Parliament the new party quickly develops in the same mould as those it strove to replace.
Thus, we find the breakingup and reforming, or splintering, of party groupings as people foolishly seek to overcome the party pyramidal structure and manipulation by replacing it with the same device and mechanism clothed in fine emotive words and phrases. People do not stop seriously to examine the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the States, and the court interpretations thereof, to find the real nature of the Constitutional and legal powers that the Australian people possess to obtain the specific results they want from their Parliaments and Parliamentarians.
In discussions with politicians and others, the existence of faults in the party system will be admitted, to be immediately followed by the claim that the people traditionally vote on party lines; that the people vote for the party system because the people want the party system.
It is legally unchallengeable that the party system exists and operates ONLY because the Australian people have been deliberately misled into believing that, other than by a dictatorship, there is no other way that Parliament could function effectively and efficiently; that despite its many faults the party system is the only effective and efficient democratic way of governing the country. This is Constitutionally and legally false.
The sole role of a political party, like any other lawful organisation, is simply to recommend to the electors that "so and so" should be a good parliamentary representative and would faithfully carry out the judicially defined legal function and duty of a parliamentarian. Should the electors accept the party's recommendation and elect that person then the party has no further legal vested interest in that elected person.
Once the Australian people are given the opportunity to learn and grasp that their Commonwealth and State Constitutions, and judicial Interpretations thereof, provide the people with a practical legal alternative to the party system to democratically (as defined in this Chapter) operate the seven Australian Parliaments then, save those with a vested interest in the party system and its manipulation, the electors will cease to use the party system.
It is a matter of the printed evidence in the Hansards of all Australian Parliaments that the most honest debating and voting only takes place, with the rarest of exceptions, when the leaders of the parties agree that a certain Bill shall be debated on nonparty lines; that their party parliamentarians shall be allowed to speak and vote absolutely freely according to their individual conscience. All other debates and votes must be on strictly party lines.
To summarise the answer to the question 'What is a political party?
A political party, in fact and in experience, is a device or mechanism designed to enable manipulators, either elected or nonelected, to obtain and exercise the maximum direct control over the destiny of the people, clichés notwithstanding, in accordance with the will of the manipulators and controllers.
IS THERE A PRACTICAL DEMOCRATIC
ALTERNATIVE TO THE PARTY SYSTEM?
As was stated in Chapter 5:
The only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy, and the offices of the GovemorGeneral and State Governors
IS TO GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THE PEOPLE ASK FOR,
NOT WHAT OTHERS THINK THE PEOPLE OUGHT TO HAVE.
Keeping this in mind leads to the logical next step, i.e. to look briefly, but closely, at what the Commonwealth and State Constitutions provide for the establishment and operation of a true democratic Parliament as previously defined:
The Parliament MUST consist of the Queen, or Her Vice Regal representatives acting in concert with both Houses of the Parliament.
Including the Senate, but excepting the socalled Upper Houses of the five States, the Constitutions provide that the people shall have the power to elect parliamentary representatives to those other so called Lower Houses.
The elected representatives have, within limits, the right of laying down rules and procedures for operating their own House of the Parliament and, subject to the boundaries of the respective Commonwealth and State Constitutions (and the judicial interpretations thereof), to enact laws for the order and good government of the people and, where clearly expressed, the written WILL of the people.
As stated in other chapters, the Queen or Her Representatives have the sole legal right to appoint and dismiss Her Ministers of the Crown.
If the Houses of the Parliament wish to remove a Minister, the only legal power available to them short of a special Act of the Parliament to do so is to petition the Queen or Her Representative to dismiss the Minister or Ministers concerned, and the Queen will do so unless the people ask Her not to do so.
The removal, or dismissal of a Minister or Ministers does not legally mean the dismissal of a government, for the government is permanently vested in the institution of the Monarchy and the Queen cannot be dismissed unless Her people, i.e., a majority of the electors, request the Queen to divest Herself of ALL AND EVERY POWER AND AUTHORITY WHICH THE MONARCHY HOLDS IN TRUST FOR THE PEOPLE, TO BE USED AS THE PEOPLE DIRECT.
The removal of Ministers by the Queen, or Her Representatives, only means replacing them with other appointees of the Queen, and has no more legal significance than that. It is only the unwarranted interference of party politics, which has given rise to a false understanding of the legal and Constitutional facts.
Electors, in each electorate, have the legal power to select and elect one Member to the socalled Lower Houses and, in the Federal system, State Senators.
Upon election, these Members and Senators have the legal power to select and elect their respective Speaker and President and, additionally, to appoint as many standing, or temporary, committees of the House, or Joint House Committees, as they consider necessary within the bounds of the Constitution.
These committees can hold legal enquiries, command the appearance of any person or persons before them; command the production of any written, printed, typed or Photostatted material or matter and, generally, commit any person, for contempt of the House to prison, for not longer than the life of that Parliament, i.e., 3 years.
With proper dignity, and sense of conscience, a Member may speak absolutely freely and fearlessly in his House of Parliament. This right comes down to Parliamentarians from the 'British Petition of Rights' and the 'Bill of Rights'. Both these ancient British quasistatutes are the basis of the judicially defined legal function and duty of a Parliamentarian, as referred to in this work.
In a correctly functioning Parliament (which no House of Parliament presently is) every Member has the right to ask leave of the House to present a Bill for an Act on any subject matter within the legal boundaries of the Constitution. Although a Member, theoretically, has the right to present a Bill, under the operation of the party system, he is allowed to do so only if the party leaders can see some political mileage for that party in that Bill, to the discomfort of their opponents.
If he chooses to use them, every Member has unlimited research facilities available to him, both within the Houses of Parliament and within universities, colleges, big and small organisations and so forth. Few of these bodies would not be happy to make their research facilities available to a Member, so it is his own fault if he does not possess a wellinformed mind on the various matters coming before him in his House of Parliament.
In each House of Parliament, the role of House attendants is, within the rules of that House, to assist the Member in every way to fulfil that Member's judicially defined function and duty. The House attendants, in every Parliament in Australia, are an example of the finest service and a credit to themselves and the House they serve.
Ministers of the Crown, in their paid capacity as administrators of departments of State are legally responsible direct to the Queen, or Her Representative, i.e., the GovernorGeneral or appropriate State Governor. Unless incompatible with the respective Constitutions and Parliamentary legislation, all direction from the Queen must be obeyed by the Ministers who are also legally bound to correctly and properly enforce all legislation relating to their specific department.
It is not within the Constitutional or legal power of Ministers to determine what business, or order of business, the Houses of the Parliament shall deal with. That is solely In the hands of the Members of each House. Unfortunately party manipulation interferes with the Members' direct legal control over their own affairs in their House, and this is a fact that Members of all parties have complained about from time to time but do not exert their legal authority to stop it.
Through either Mr. Speaker or Mr. President, or both, the Queen or Her Representative may transmit messages and requests that the House or Houses amend, reconsider, or introduce any Bill, except that in the socalled Upper Houses no Financial Bills shall be initiated in that House.
If the Queen or Her representative is asked by the majority of the people to direct either or both Houses to do a lawful thing, then those Houses have no legal alternative than to carry out the clearly expressed written WILL of the people.
As stated in Chapter 2, the Members of each House are required, within that House, to act with a dignity, decorum and solemnity not less than that of a judge in his court. Members who do not, or who refuse to, act with judgelike solemnity and few Members do so act are guilty of a gross violation of their judicially defined function and duty, and of their Oath or Affirmation of Office, and the Speaker or President is equally guilty if he does not, in the strongest terms and possible lawful ways strictly enforce that conduct of solemnity amongst the Members.
The Speaker and the President are the sole direct legal contact between each House of Parliament and the Queen or Her Representatives. Ministers of the Crown illegally usurp the authority of the Speaker and/or the President when they try to act as if THEY were the direct contact.
Contrary to the longstanding clichés, party political and otherwise, Ministers of the Crown are not legally responsible to Parliament or the Houses of the Parliament.
Parliament, as previously stressed in this work, consists of the Queen, or legal government, and the Houses of Parliament acting in concert. The Queen is the supreme legal government and the Houses of the Parliament are the legislativeforming bodies. The Minister can be legally responsible only to the legal government, that is the Queen or Her appropriate Commonwealth and State Representative.
Members have complete legal power to bring public servants before the bar of the House for any purpose whenever the House deems it is vital to do so. It is completely outside of the legal jurisdiction of a Minister to direct his departmental officers not to give information to the House when called before the bar of that House. It is only party politics which makes this illegal act of Ministers possible, despite resort to the authority of the SolicitorGeneral and/or standing works like "May's Parliamentary Practices." Such authorities are wholly and solely based upon pure party political practices and not upon legal grounds sustainable in court.
If Members of Parliament really exercised the true legal authority they have to bring top public servants before the bar of the House and make them disclose the real or theoretical basis of much of the advice that these officers give their Ministers, then you would see the beginning of the end of bureaucracy and the emergence of true public service at all levels. It must be obvious to everyone that, because of internal empirebuilding and internal office and interdepartmental politics, Ministers do not always get the impartial factual advice that they are entitled to receive and, of a consequence, many fine departmental officers have to carry a public odium that is not warranted. It is time, therefore, that senior Officers, at least, should be made to carry the full responsibility of the advice they give their Ministers and, from this writer's inside knowledge most such officers would welcome this responsibility.
The Queen, Her GovernorGeneral and State Governors are directly responsible, not to the Houses of Parliament nor political parties but, to the people in the respective Constitutional areas.
Except where any Constitution, or a lawful statute within that Constitution, lays down that the Queen or her appropriate representative shall act, in relation to a specified matter, only with the advice of the Executive Council (be it Federal or State) there is no legal compulsion for the Queen to do so. Nor is there any legal compulsion for the Queen or Her Representative to give the Royal Assent to any legislation, unless directed to do so by the clearly expressed written WILL of the people.
The Federal and State Executive Councils do not legally have to be composed wholly of Ministers of the Crown. This is just a nonlegal party political practice to keep party control over the machinery of government and of Parliament. The Commonwealth and State Constitutions all provide that the appropriate Executive Council shall be comprised of all Ministers of the Crown and such other persons whom the Queen, or Her Representative, may care to appoint as advisors on particular subjects or matters.
The Constitutions of the Commonwealth and States give the Queen, and Her appropriate representatives, the sole power and authority, at any time of their choosing, to dissolve the socalled Lower House and send those Members back to the electorate. If directed by the written WILL of the people the Queen or Her Representative, MUST dissolve the Lower House.
This is one of the two most vital powers of control over Parliamentarians and Parliament that the people possess.
The other is the power to ask the Queen to give them the specified results they want from the Parliamentary machine.
ALWAYS REMEMBER THIS VITAL FACT: IF IT IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WANT IT, THEN THE QUEEN HAS THE FINAL POWER TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE PEOPLE GET WHAT THEY WANT, AND NO COURT WOULD RULE AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF THE QUEEN'S POWER IN THAT RESPECT.
It is obvious that it is not in the best interests of the political parties, and certain other writers, that you should have the above knowledge; for your understanding of, and use of, that knowledge means the end of party manipulations; the end of Party control over the voice and vote of Members of Parliament, and this is unarguable,
It is stressed again that it is the lawful duty and obligation of every elector continuously to inform his Federal and State Members of Parliament, and State Senators, of what his WILL is on everything that comes before Parliament or should come before the Houses of the Parliament. In not performing your lawful duty and obligation you are giving Members and Senators a plausible excuse for not carrying out their judicially defined legal duty and legal function, thus enabling party manipulators and controllers to retain their dictatorship over the voices and votes of your Members and Senators and of the machinery of Parliament to impose their will upon you.
Shorn of all legal jargon, the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the six Australian States provide for the operation of an almost perfect form of democratic parliament IF YOU, THE PEOPLE, choose to apply the power and authority which those Constitutions give to you.
THE SOLE AND ONLY LEGAL LIMIT TO THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE QUEEN IS THE UNKNOWABLE EXTENT OF WHAT HER PEOPLE, AT ANY TIME OF THEIR CHOOSING, MAY DIRECTLY REQUEST OF HER.
A FEW THOUGHTS ON EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARDS FOR THE PEOPLE
In the previous Chapters the Constitutional and legal powers available to the people to get what they want, and to protect themselves against the manipulators or party politics, have been outlined.
The question now arises whether additional Constitutional safeguards are required to further protect the people. In this chapter a few thoughts are advanced.
Clearly, whilst the Commonwealth and State Constitutions give the people the power to have their Lower Houses of Parliament dissolved at any time of the people's choosing, there is presently no authority:
(a) For the Upper House to be sent back to face the electors when they so WILL it.
(b) For any Senator or Legislative Councillor to be forced to face re-election at any time the electors so WILL it.
(c) For any electorate to have its existing Member, Federal or State, sent
back to recontest his seat if a majority of his electors so WILL it.
The inclusion of all three above powers in both Commonwealth and State Constitutions is essential to give the electors even more effective control over their Parliamentarians and the machinery of Parliament, and make both more sensitive to the requirements of the people.
To bring any Senator, Legislative Councillor or Member back to face a recontesting of his seat ought only to require a simple majority of electors in each of the three constitutional areas to inform the Governor-General or State Governor which ever is appropriate that it is MY WILL that "so and so be sent back to recontest his seat in his House of Parliament."
It many be contended that such a constitutional provision would make the Houses of Parliament unworkable because the actions of opposing groups would involve members and Senators in continuous elections. Such a contention, however, misses the point that electors would not be interested in recalling a Member or Senator who was giving public evidence of faithfully performing his judicially defined legal function and duty. Naturally legal safeguards would have to be included in the Constitutions making it illegal, even an act of conspiracy, for any recall of a Senator or Member to be initiated, organised and/or financed from outside the electorate concerned.
In this work it is not intended to go into the question of the actual machinery necessary to allow the electors to replace any Member or Senator whom they have recalled. Rather it is the purpose to raise the point for serious study by the electors themselves as to how they may determine what basic protection changes they want in their Constitutions. Undoubtedly there would be many competent persons who could work out the machinery necessary to give full and proper legal effect to the WILL of the electors in this matter.
Another extremely vital protection element for the people is that no treaties, international conventions or agreements, and the like, should be entered into by Parliament, or by executive action, without the specific consent and authority of the people themselves. This point is raised because such things are agreed to, far too often, without the people having the faintest idea of the direct and indirect legal and other significances and consequences of such actions.
Indeed, few would be the politicians, let alone the people, who would have any conception of the far reaching effects that many such treaties, agreements and conventions could have upon Australia and the Australian way of life. Under the influence, if not the manipulations, of international interests, theorists and idealists, Ministers of the Crown far too often persuade the legal government and the Houses of Parliament (under party control) to agree to bind the nation and States without the full implications of the legal, political and economic impacts being first thoroughly publicly debated.
Even at this moment of writing there are agreements and conventions afoot of which, in Australia, few indeed have any real knowledge; agreements and conventions that can have far greater impact upon the liberty and way of life in this country than some Ministers would care to fully explain.
The people should also insist that the Commonwealth and State Constitutions be tightened to make it absolutely impossible for Ministers of the Crown and Houses of Parliament to effect, what some would call, snide changes in the Constitutions without a referendum of the people. Those who have made long and deep researches into constitutional law are aware how these changes can be effected without the real understanding of the people and most politicians.
It cannot be denied that this country is suffering from "government by regulation" and many writers have drawn attention to this indisputable fact. In Commonwealth and State Parliaments the volume of legislation, which is implemented by subsequent departmental regulations, is quite unbelievable. Even during the last War, the noted NSW. Constitutional authority, Dr. Frank Louatt, K.C., was moved to direct attention to the fact that for every 1000 pages of Acts of Parliaments there were over 5000 pages of regulations.
In their own interests the people should forbid the passing of any legislation, which requires departmental regulations to implement it. If regulations are thought to be required then the Parliamentarians, party pressures notwithstanding, must be adamant that the departmental officers seeking those regulations shall be brought before the bar of the House of Parliament and made to publicly prove that such regulation is absolutely vital in the interests of the people.
This Chapter advances but a few thoughts: a few of the many arising from many long years of Constitutional research, coupled with both parliamentary and departmental personal experience. They are offered to stimulate deeper thought and study by the reader of this book.
It has been said of the great Henry Ford of the "tin lizzy" fame that he once stated:
'It matters not how many degrees you may have after your name, unless you can think, you are uneducated. "
The writer hopes that the contents of this book will make you
AND THEN ACT.
"BUT THEY SHALL SIT EVERYMAN UNDER
HIS VINE AND UNDER HIS FIG TREE;
AND NONE SHALL MAKE THEM AFRAID,...
MICAH IV, iv.
Magna Carta 1215.
(39) No freeman shall be captured or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.
(B) Extract from the Statute issued by Edward 1, in confirmation of the Charters, November 5, 1297.
"...; and that our justices, sheriffs and mayors, and other ministers, which, under us, have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters, pleaded before them in judgement, in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law "
(C) Bill Of Rights 1689.
(5) That it is the right of the subjects to Petition the King, and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
(D) Crimes Act 1914.
(24F) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this Part makes it unlawful for a person:
(a) to endeavour in good faith to show that the Sovereign, the GovernorGeneral, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Territory, or the advisors of any of them, or the persons responsible for the government of another country, has or have been, or is or are, mistaken in any of his or their counsels, policies or actions;
(E) Postage exemptions for material sent to the GovernorGeneral and the State Governors:
Information from the stamp below must be printed or written on the top left corner of envelope to the GovernorGeneral or State Governors. All information abbreviated as given on stamp must appear on the envelope:
Post. Serv. Act. 1975
Part 111; Div. 1. Sec. 14(5a).
'(A) SAMPLE PETITION TO THE GOVERNORGENERAL
AN HUMBLE PRAYER AND PETITION
TO HIS EXCELLENCY
His Excellency The Honourable William George Hayden, O.A.,
GovernorGeneral of the Commonwealth of Australia and
CommanderinChief of the Defence Force,
CANBERRA, ACT. 2600
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY,
I know it is my duty to keep you informed as to MY WILL on any matter that comes before the Parliament or should come before the Parliament.
The Hawke Ministry has set up the Constitutional Commission for the purpose of persuading the Australian People to accept changes to the Commonwealth Constitution as propagated by the republicans and their supporters in the community.
The republicans want centralisation of power and control of every aspect of our lives, which in turn will destroy the freedoms, which have come down to us from the ancient statutes of Magna Carta 1225, Petition of Rights 1628, Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1701, through the British Commonwealth and State Parliaments to the present day.
The Queensland Council of Agriculture is sending a submission to the Advisory Committee on Trade and National Economic Management of the Constitutional Commission in which the Council will be suggesting amendments to Sections 51, 90 and 92 in particular according to their draft submission of February 1987.
It is not a question of being against t he State Councils of Agriculture, Marketing Boards etc. It is a question of the Australian People preventing the ultimate centralisation, taking from their hands the right to live their lives in the freedom, which is their birthright.
It is MY WILL that no amendments or alterations be made to the Commonwealth Constitution without the consent and express will of the Australian People by
I do most humbly and respectfully Pray and Beseech Your Excellency to
convey MY WILL to both Houses of the Parliament.
I am one of Her Australian Majesty's respectful servants,
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!
PRINT NAME ...........................................
TO A STATE GOVERNOR
AN HUMBLE PRAYER AND PETITION
TO HIS EXCELLENCY
The Honourable Sir Waiter Campbell QC
Governor of Queensland
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY
'(B) SAMPLE PETITION TO FEDERAL MEMBER
Federal Member for ..............
I know it is my duty to keep you informed as to MY WILL on any matter that comes before the Parliament or should come before the Parliament.
The Hawke Ministry has set up the Constitutional Commission for the purpose of persuading the Australian People to accept changes to the Commonwealth Constitution as propagated by the republicans and their supporters in the community.
The republicans want centralisation of power and control of every aspect of our lives, which in turn will destroy the freedoms which have come down to us from the ancient statutes of Magna Carta 1225, Petition of Rights Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1701, through the British Commonwealth and State Parliaments to the present day.
The Queensland Council of Agriculture is sending a submission to the Advisory Committee on Trade and National Economic Management of the Constitutional Commission in which the Council will be suggesting amendments to Sections 51, 90 and 92 in particular, according to the draft submission of February 1987.
It is not a question of being against the state councils of Agriculture, Marketing Boards etc. It is a question of the Australian People preventing the ultimate centralisation, taking from their hands the right to live their lives in the freedom, which is their birthright.
It is MY WILL that no amendments or alterations be made to the Commonwealth Constitution without the consent and express will of the Australian People by referendum
.. STATE .............
TO FEDERAL SENATOR TO STATE MEMBER
Senator State, Member for
Dear Senator Dear
Reproduced below is a letter of recommendation to the Secretary of the publishing Committee, received from Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls in the British House of Lords.
A fair copy of the letter follows.
16 Aug., 1989.
Dear Don Rackemann,
I am glad to have the copy of Arthur Chresby's booklet, "Your Will Be Done".
It is a most valuable exposition in simple terms of the constitutional link of the Queen and Parliament in Australia. Some of the propositions in it may be the subject of controversy but controversy is invigorating and leads eventually to correct decisions.
Wake Up Australia
forwarded by David
I submitted the rough draft of this report to Brigadier Ted Serong, a man who is respected as one who has contributed more to Australia's defence than any man I know living in Australia today. I did not want there to be any loophole to allow frivolous criticism of minor errors to obscure reality. His reply was:
This is excellent material. It is correct. I support it. You may quote that - if it helps. The presentation is not quite my style - but your style is your business, and the content is right and needs to be said. Keep it up.
Why have a Defence Force?
Anyone who thinks that our near north neighbours are now so civilised that they would not play baby kebabs with a bayonet is too stupid to survive long on this earth. In November a Muslim Shiite religious leader was explaining that, by their law, they had to kill all infidel men, women and children. The journo asked, "But! Why kill babies?" The Muslim leader replied, "Ah! Blue eyed babies grow up into white devils." Don't write this man off as an exception and religious nut. He is not an exception. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who have these beliefs.
He also has sound reasons to believe we are devils, if we look at the world through his eyes, and the eyes of Saddam Hussein. If you opened the newspaper tomorrow and found that Hussein had used chemical, microwave and laser technology to wipe out 250,000 US military personnel and 100,000 civilians you would be shocked. If Hussein then ordered the US to destroy ALL their weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION, under threat of annihilation, would we go to their aid?
With no weapons, would the US feel safe from Russia, Japan, China etc ? How would the widows, orphans and grieving parents feel towards Hussein and his merciless attack. If Hussein came back with HIS inspectors and threatened further murder of civilian population if Clinton did not open all factories for "inspection" how would US civilians feel?
World War III?
Saddam Hussein and Muhatir Gadaffi are not cowards and they are not fools. They are leaders and they have obligations to defend their people. Let nobody delude themselves. Anyone who thinks Gadaffi and Hussein have no choice but to endure Clinton's attacks is a fool. There are enough Muslims in USA to have a holocaust of unprecedented proportions.
One fanatic on a motorbike could visit every agricultural show in the USA and infect all prime stock with anthrax that would make the continent uninhabitable as are the islands where anthrax was tested in World War II. Any activist with half a brain can get 200 litres of grease/oil/petrol mix and explode it at Grand Central Station in peak hour to show the US what it is like on the receiving end of some ordnance. If Hussein and Gadaffi go tit-for-tat the civilians lose - not the politicians.
The UN attack on Iraq could trigger the holy war. The Muslims have as much right to weapons of mass destruction as does the US. Just because we see ourselves as the "good guys" does not endow us with any such status.
If there is a war, what is the state of our Defence Forces? Our Mindset
Pretending that we will never be attacked won't save us. Pretending that very senior people in the major parties are not part of an agenda to disarm us might be comforting but their activities should be monitored, as I have done, from when I joined the RAAF in 1959 until now. I give you a thumbnail sketch of just some of the defence facilities that the government got rid of.
The Ready Reserve
This cache of 1,157 Bren guns and 415,000 303s (plus ammunition) was put in storage after World War II in case we were invaded. It took three years to unpack, clean, check, oil and repack the weapons, and then it was time to do it all again. I watched the storeman, acting under orders, dumping them on the Barrier Reef, cutting them up in pallet loads and sending them to Sims' Metal. By 1991 most had been destroyed. The remainder, 100,000 303s 8,300 Brens, 3,000 Vickers, and all remaining Owen guns went to "overseas tender only" (Aust 30/5/91). This left us with 110,000 of the L1A1, 7.62mm self loading rifles and 37,000 Steyr 5,56mm rifles.
In 1994 the government ordered that these 110,000 rifles be melted down at BHP. Each rifle was worth $4,000 secondhand. That left us with (by then) 67,000 Steyrs.
The Steyr was 5.56mm or .223cal a virtual toy by military weapon standards. It was touted the killer weapon as was the Armalite 223. The British commandos used that in the Falkland war. In the debriefing the commandos reported that the .223cal was no use in war. In their words, "The Armalite 5.56mm the L42 (7.62mm) and the SLR were the weapons predominantly used, but the Armalite just didn't have the stopping power - it's a 5.56mm high velocity round, and it used to go straight through people as opposed to knocking them down. The 7.62 SLRs and L42s were knocking them down." It was after the Australian "government" were aware of this inadequacy that they dumped the SLRs and armed Australians with a known ineffective calibre weapon.
The Steyr proved to be defective. The Army issued an order No. 7196-94. This indicated that the Steyr should not be used on rapid fire for long because plastic parts melted. The Saudis tried the Steyr and rejected it because it could not handle the dusty conditions. It was also reported that the tiny .223cal was no good in the tropical wet either. It didn't take many drops of water down the barrel to make the gun unsafe to the operator. The optical sight fogs up in the jungle and, since the rifle has no other sight, the soldier is in deep trouble.
The Federal Government decided that the gun legislation to disarm Australia applied to our armed services. If you can't believe that read this report from the Financial Review 1/12/97. "The Federal Government arms manufacturer, Australian Defence Industries Ltd, is being paid $400,000 for surplus guns it is surrendering under the Government's guns amnesty." " The surrender improves the balance sheet of ADI, which is about to be privatised, and increases both the tally of weapons surrendered and the payments, which come out of the extra medicare levy." We paid them to melt more of our vital defence weapons.
The "government" closed our ammunition factories so we no longer had the capability to make our own ammunition.
The ammunition, which had to be imported, was defective. There was case separation which means that when the extractor tried to pull the spent cartridge out of the breach the rim came but the case didn't. The only way the gun could be repaired was to send it back to the armourer where the brass could be reamed out.
The Ammunition suppliers
Guess who got the contract to supply us with ammunition. You guessed it - Indonesia. By a strange coincidence they were unable to fulfill the contracts so the Army had no reserves and no ammunition to even practice with. Does that surprise you?
Surface to Air Missiles (SAM)
In the fifties and sixties the RAAF had a missile squadron to protect our industrial heartland around Newcastle. By 1970 the squadron had been eliminated and not replaced.
Over the Horizon Radar
Today, from satellite, observers can read the headlines of your newspaper, they can detect a metal object the size of a can opener, and they can pick up the heat of a decomposing body, buried two foot down, four months after body was buried. They can track every ship on the face of the earth. Now - thirty years after the invention of radar absorbent paint for aircraft, Australia is experimenting with over-the-horizon ground based radar and not too successfully. Does that surprise you?
Our Air Transport
I watched the RAAF stand the Hercules transport aircraft on the airstrip at Laverton unattended and un-maintained. These craft deteriorated until they were sold at junk prices. At that time we were paying Ansett and TAA to fly our men and equipment because we did not have the aircraft to shift them.
We had twenty Chinooks until the government sold 18 of them. Now we have no aircraft capable of moving our soldiers rapidly or getting supplies to them. In the invasion of Malaya during the last war the Japanese used pushbikes. We haven't even got bikes.
We had the best electronics school in Australia at Laverton. The adult trainees were a cut above anyone else. We gave hands-on equipment training to the apprentices who received their theory and practical training in the best civilian establishments including the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. The apprentices were so far behind the "direct entry" trainees doing the same course under RAAF instructors that they could not even start the practical training undertaken at Laverton. To solve this problem RAAF instructors had to take the apprentices for a crash course from basics though to computers to get the civilian trained product to a level to even look at complex equipment. I was one of the instructors at the school for over ten years. The School of Radio was closed leaving our youth bereft of the only decent electronics school in Australia.
A Spy's Paradise
The armed forces Headquarters Support Command, Victoria Barracks, St Kilda Road was the security joke of the century. All modifications under development related to by weaponry, airframes, engines, electrical, radio, radar and navigation aids had to be routed through, and processed by, civilian staff who were not tradesmen and had no business knowing what modifications were under way. When I was there the "modifications" cell was run by a gentleman of recent European extraction.
We, the technical writers, had to have our typing done by the public servants. There were many foreigners in the typing pool. The military personnel were not allowed to do their own photocopying. The copying had to be done by public servants who took the classified documents out of sight, took what copies they wanted, and then returned the documents.
Our transmitting and receiving stations were dispersed for survivability. These have been closed so we rely on Telstra which is not secure. Encoded messages are easily broken with computers these days.
About half of our rifle ranges have been closed and the others are being eliminated rapidly. There is an agenda to close nearly every civilian and military range. WHY? The government knows the rifle and pistol clubs provided a pool of shooters who could in war be snipers or train troops. They do not miss a trick in disarming and disadvantaging us.
The services have contracted out their maintenance. This is okay in peace time but it means the servicemen sit doing nothing, get no hands on experience and become box changers. In time of war we can't force the civilians to go overseas or even to Darwin and we can't force them to cross train so they are drivers, gunners, radio operators and soldiers. This is planned and subtle sabotage. We can't even make the mechanics go on a test flight in the aircraft they declare serviceable. That kept them honest.
At the risk of being accused of sexism let me say the women do a good job but the number who entered the services in noncombat roles actually reduced the combat troops available for dangerous duty by about a quarter. In an armed service our size that is bad news.
The civilian staff are neither use nor ornament to armed services. They too can't be cross trained to change overnight from box packers (equipment assistants) to cracker stackers (gunners) and soldiers. They simply give the services numbers that are not there in time of war. They serve to conceal the real weakness of our armed forces. When our army was 27,000 strong we had:
500 Medical Assistants
192 Movement Assistants
817 Vehicle Mechanics
585 Info Systems Operators
1,728 Technical Storemen
241 Cartographic Techs
3,100 Riflemen (a joke)
Source: Minister for Defence, Senator Ray as reported in the Australian Financial Review 15/5/91.
That would give us about one rifleman for every eight kilometres of coastline.
Troops are being brainwashed into believing that, if they see anyone get hurt they really need counselling. God help them if the Japs or Indonesians get them. There won't be any time to sit down, have a good cry, and call the padres and counsellors.
The whole idea of discipline is too make the soldier so scared of his sergeant that he would rather fight a Jap with a machine gun rather than risk the wrath of the sergeant. That ain't easy. Current armed forces policy says that officers and NCOs are not to talk harshly to the men and women in case their delicate feelings suffer damage. To suggest that this is all part of a deliberate plan by the government to neuter the forces might have raised a laugh a few years ago but now there are just too many signs that there is deliberate psychological indoctrination of our troops to take away their manhood.
There have always been a few homosexuals in the armed forces. Provided they did their work and did not interfere with others they were tolerated. If they became a pain in the butt to others they were sent packing. Now the government makes a production of "accepting" gays. Their real intent seems to be to encourage limp wristed ones to be visible and active as part of the image of our new bronzed ANZACs. Our image in Asia is pretty bad when our politicians take their lipstick and fishnet stockings to do some "diplomacy". We do not need fairies in the forces to make us the laughing stock of the world. The politicians do a good job in that field. I do not rush around telling everyone that I am heterosexual and I see no need for any "publicity" about who is gay and certainly there is no need to pay public relations officers to sell our pro gay armed forces.
Soldiers are so coddled that they are not allowed to carry rifles, bolts and ammunition in the same vehicle in case they have an accident. The enemy will really shock them. He will want to kill them on purpose. Would anyone seriously suggest that police carry their pistol in one car and ammunition in another? Then why impose such nonsense on grown ups in uniform?
Ready or Not
The government has a suicide plan. They store our rifles where they are safe - in locked armories. Anyone with half a brain knows this is absolute stupidity. From lessons learnt every since gun repositories were invented, the hard cold facts are that, you do not put all the guns in one place where the enemy can steal them or destroy them in bulk. One guerrilla with a machine guns can keep a thousand unarmed men out of their own armory. Even if they got into the armory they would still have no bolts (breech blocks) and then no ammunition. This cannot be an accident. In the fifties we had a bracket on the wall where our rifles stood under our own lock and key.
To make sure we could not even build military weapons in an emergency the government bought in legislation to force private firms to sell out to the government so the factories could be dismantled and the machinery destroyed. It seems the government is happy for every other nation on earth to make guns, but WE can't. Do you start to see a pattern emerging?
We had Operation Kangaroo to see if Australia could cope with an invasion from the north. Guess who the "government" brought in as independent umpires. You guessed right again - Indonesian Generals.
The government has done more damage to our navy than the Japs did in World War II. We don't need an enemy with the ALP/DEM/LIB/NAT/GREENS at the helm.
They got rid of the Melbourne. Our only aircraft carrier. Our economy is so devastated we can never hope to replace it.
Fleet Air Arm
The government got rid of the Fleet Air Arm leaving our ships without air cover in the twentieth century.
Our Missile Ships
We had the Derwent and the Swan. The government sank the Derwent to test demolition charges. They sank the Swan to make an artificial reef. I had a report from a marine engineer who went over the Swan as it was being made ready for a watery grave. He could not believe they were going to get rid of a ship in such great condition.
Collins Class Submarines
These are a disaster. They are World War II mechanics. They are noisy and have to surface to charge batteries. In the seventies these type ships could be tracked like bleeding elephants in the snow. They have no real defence against attack and they are armed with iron torpedoes which in the 21st century will be the laughing stock of the world. Our government knew this when they ordered the submarines. It would be kinder to shoot the crew now than let them suffer a horrible death in war. Perhaps we should shoot the traitors who deliberately ordered that we equip with obsolete toys.
The defence support facilities thought up new treason. They ordered that the Royal Australian Navy build their patrol boats out of aluminium and magnesium instead of steel, allegedly to avoid rust. They knew, from World War II, that magnesium was good for making incendiaries. They put our navy boys into incendiary bombs knowing that any hit would incinerate our fathers, brothers and sons. When the boat burns it is as though the sailor was tied to a fireworks fountain. Any survivors are horribly disfigured and often maimed. The government built these death traps here in my home town, Maryborough, at Walkers Ltd. Our old patrol boats were completely refurbished and delivered to Indonesia. John MacLean, of Hervey Bay, was the crane operator.
Are there kickbacks
We bought two US Navy tank landing vessels, the Manoora and Kanimbla. Both were built in 1975. We paid $61 million. Then we spent $42 million on initial rust repair, $54 million on initial repair and upgrade, and then another $93 million additional repair and upgrade. We still have ships 24 years old and obsolete. (Daily Telegraph 11/9/98).
Prior to joint control there was healthy rivalry between the services. They all had aircraft, boats and guns. If any one service was infiltrated the others were still effective. Today they have all been infiltrated through the joint control and civilianisation. Asians and aliens are given key jobs above the uniformed branches.
ASIO & ASIS
Hindsight reveals that a suspected KGB spy from MI5 actually set up and staffed our security services. One can only guess at the key men he chose. This is dealt with in full on Page 12
Training the Enemy
I have video footage of Mr Sambawaga (Indonesian Spokesman and politician bragging that they will ATTACK and, in the same footage Ali Alitas (Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs) is saying that Mr Sambawaga reflects the views of the Indonesian people and the parliament. We are training Indonesian troops at Canungra our Jungle Warfare Centre so they know all of our tactics. We bring them out here on joint exercises so they get to see every aspect of our army, navy and air force. This is treason.
Everywhere one goes in Indonesia one hears the same line of tripe. Indonesia small country - many people. Australia big country - few people. It is obvious that this is the government education/ propaganda line being drummed into the people. By the same logic Suharto lives in a big house - few children. Paddy Murphy lives in small house - many children. Perhaps Suharto would like to swap to even thing out. The "big house" theory is the maggot of madness that starts all wars. It is theirs. I want it. Therefore it's mine. I will take it by force. They don't want to give it up. The last survivor wins, at the cost of a million brothers, sons and fathers.
The government has permitted Indonesia to acquire cattle stations with night landing strip facilities. Planes fly in and out without passing through Australian customs. They can and do (according to informants) fly in drugs and guns and take out exotic birds and reptiles. They overfly the north of Australia at will practicing "crosswind" landings as far south as Carnarvon. Why don't they practice in Indonesia, no crosswinds?
We had hundreds of military trucks from Asia standing on RAAF bases when they came out here for an exercise. The trucks were here long after the exercise and may be still here. WHY? There was an outbreak of Anthrax in the area, was that coincidence?
According to the government we can't get enough Australians to train as pilots for the RAAF so we are now training Singaporean, Malay and Indonesian pilots to fly OUR aircraft. The government does not tell the truth. Our universities are full of Aussies who would give their eye teeth to be jet pilots. In the event of a war with Asia which way would these pilots shoot and how hard would they fight for us?
The government has a plan to bring out thousands of Indonesian troops for "crowd control" during the 2000 Olympics. I wonder which crowd they will and control and whether they will go home.
The Indonesians claim our fishing beds and northern islands on the grounds that they intermarried with Aborigines so they are indigenous Australians with more title to the north than any of us from of European descent. What garbage? They were using dugouts until the Dutch arrived. Asians are training and arming militant Aborigines in the north. Peter Sawyer, in Inside News, published details of a shipment of AK47s allegedly imported by Fuller Firearms and allegedly stored in Bondie's warehouses. I challenged Peter to show me proof. He pulled out photos of pallets and weigh bills showing that the arms originated in Russia. That was in 1988. The Indonesians would use the Aborigines and then shoot them like dogs. Any Aborigine thinking of joining his black brothers should do a quick educational trip to West New Guinea. If he gets back he will be wiser.
Indonesia in 1993 took our oilfields south of the Timor Trench (the border by international law). These were worth $250 billion ($85,000 per Australian family). In 1997 they took at least as much again (the new border is called the Economic Exclusion Zone). There was a massive Indonesian buy out of our assets on Christmas Island. Now they claim that along with the continental shelf the size of Tasmania. To get involved in a war all one needs to do is show a bully nation that you are too yellow to resist their first, second or third land grab. Let them ram your patrol boats and push Australians off their own fishing grounds. Bang! You are dead.
How to deter Indonesia
Janes, the leading authority on world conflict says that Australia WILL be invaded. All we need do to eliminate this threat is to arm their last three or four victims. Imagine if we gave the Timorese a thousand sniper rifles, what havoc they would cause to those who mercilessly slaughtered their people to suppress them and gain the oil fields? If we gave the West New Guinea natives a thousand sniper rifles they would take revenge for the genocide there.
The government has, through Interpol, provided computer access to the name, address, driver licence and personal particulars of every gun owner, political writer, editor and activist in Australia so they can be rounded up in the event of invasion and occupation.
The army against us
The army is training in urban clearance, and suppression and internment of civilians. We are the civilians. In the fifties we were taught crowd control. We could shoot if our life, the life of a fellow soldier or a civilian was threatened. I have restricted documents showing that the army are authorised to shoot civilians without such requirements. They can execute without resort to a trial.
The ALP/DEM/LIB/NAT/GREENS have signed or are signing treaties that we will not use gas, nuclear, biological, chemical, laser, mines, incendiaries or booby traps. That is big of them. They do not say what we are allowed to use or how we could defend ourselves.
Our own politicians pose the most serious threat to our country. We have no idea which of them are loyal to the Fabians, the New World Order, the Financiers or to themselves. They are certainly not loyal to Australia. They have pursued a policy of giving preference to Asian and Aliens in all of the public service establishments. It is hard to phone a government office in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, and find someone who can talk anything but stilted English.
We have discussed that the Muslims HAVE to kill us infidels.
The Brisbane Line
In World War II an infamous decision was made to abandon Queensland to the Japanese. The southern cowards did not tell Queenslanders so they could arm and fight as guerillas. On the contrary, they pleaded with Queenslanders to hand in their guns so the army could defend Australia. All of this was long after the allies knew that the Japanese were depraved murderers who enjoyed a bit of fun making their victims form details to dig holes. The next detail buried the first detail up to their necks and then covered the heads with earth so the victims died a slow horrible death to provided entertainment. Other games included tying captured prisoner's hand and foot and using the prisoner for bayonet practice, once again to provide entertainment. (Refer photos "Knights of Bushido" by Lord Russell.) Left alone Queenslanders would have made invasion or occupation by the Japanese an experience the Japs would not have enjoyed. Disarmed they would have been "entertainment". That is the good news.
The Newcastle Line
A leaked document revealed the Australian Defence Strategy which planned to defend only south from Newcastle to Adelaide. The Defence Department admitted the leaked document was genuine. (The Sunday Age, 28 June 1992). Guess what - the ALP/DEM/LIB/NAT/GREENS have a plan to totally disarm ALL Australians. Sound familiar?
The New World Order could organise an invasion of Australia, by a million Chinese, simply by dumping the boat people who would flee the fanatical Muslims in Indonesia. The Indonesians killed 250,000 Chinese in a couple of days in 1965 and now the "hate the Chinese" game is on again.
If the Indonesians started ferrying hundreds of thousands of civilian women and children into the north what could we do? There is no such thing as peaceful invasion. The aim is the same - eventual displacement, suppression and eventual slaughter. We are talking about your inevitable fate if you don't do something.
China and Indonesia agreed in 1964 that everything north of the Philippines belonged to China and everything south of the Philippines belonged to Indonesia. That was big of them.
The Chinese have been selling the Norinco Laser Death Ray for years. The USA kindly gave them the technology. I published photos in an earlier edition. It is the size of a Vickers machine gun and water cooled. It isn't much good as a death ray but it totally and permanently blinds every soldier it hits. What do you think an invader would do with 50,000 blind Australian soldiers. They wouldn't even shoot them. They would let them wander until they drop and the crows would pick out their eyes just as they do to any downed beast (before the beast is dead). This is war on this earth and we live here or we will if we are as tough and ruthless as our enemy. Don't hide from truth or prediction will become reality for you.
Japan is reemerging as a potential threat. They admit to spending $56 billion a year on defence. Much of their military expenditure is disguised as legitimate civilian expenses. They are only peace loving when they are under very close scrutiny.
They have an elite officer corps that could create an invasion size army, in addition to the 200,000 they already have, in a matter of months. They have nuclear subs galore, 280 state-of-the-art tanks, 63 combat ships, 170 armoured fighting vehicles, 150 new helicopters, 386 combat aircraft, three surface to air missile battalions and a large women's army.
One good night on the saki and it is on again. Little wonder it was the Japs who moved the motion to disarm civilians in Australia. That is where Howard got his orders from. (Ninth UN Congress, Cairo, Egypt 29th April - 8th May 1995). Little wonder the Japanese Prime Minister thanked John Howard for initiating the program to disarm Australian civilians (Northern Daily Leader 19/9/97).
Who will Rescue us?
The US may not. They have allowed Timor and West Irian to go into Indonesia's tender mercy. A bit of genocide here and there doesn't worry the Americans much. A merchant seaman told me that he was in West Irian and noticed the farmers were all Indonesians. He asked where the locals were. The Commandant simply held his hand low, as though he had a pistol and was shooting a dog in the head. These are the people the government is to import to handle security for the 2000 Olympics. Will they go home?
I have had airline pilots, Barrier Reef marine pilots, letter-to-the-editor, and teachers who taught in Indonesia etc. All say they have seen maps showing this as part of Indonesia. In 1976 army personnel from Bendigo (Army Cartographic Unit) told me that they had drawn maps for Indonesia showing Australia as part of Indonesia. I wrote to the Minister for Defence and he would not deny that.
The Governor General
He has betrayed us and the Australian Constitution by handing control of the military over to the politicians. That is illegal. Our forefathers made specific instructions that was never to be. Any nation that allows the politicians to control the police and the military is in deep trouble. If you hear Howard talk of "his government" sending troops to Iraq, just be aware, if he does any act which presumes control of the armed services he risks a long jail term. Any GG who give tacit support to the subversion of our Constitution (Para 68) is in similar trouble. You must ask yourself WHY do these men HAVE to subvert OUR laws? They know it is treason. What incentive drives them?
The foremost authority on defence, war, weapons and politics has forecast that Australia will be invaded. Perhaps Janes have been listening to the hundreds of Indonesians who brag that this country is theirs and they ARE coming to get it.
The best officers in all of the armed services have been pushed aside to make room for the new breed of academic airheads who have been anointed with defence degrees and diplomas by the lunatic socialist left ratbags who pass as professors in the Defence Academy. The men who knew how to storm a hill and not lose their men have been replaced with people loyal to anyone but Australia.
We are on our own and we should be capable of reasonable defence against attack. We need a big bang or similar modern weapon. The only thing that will put 200,000 Indonesians or Japanese back on their own territory is the fear that their territory will be hit real hard. That fact that our leaders do not want us to have adequate defence is a worry. In a worst case scenario where we are actually invaded regulars are no use against insurmountable odds. Guerillas are the only successful force capable of stopping total takeover. Guerillas NEVER surrender totally but to have a fighting chance they need expert training and survival skills such as that available at Canungra. It is a statistical fact that it takes about ten to twelve times as many regulars to beat a force of guerillas who only fight when and where it suits them. With 600,000 irregulars an invader would need 6,000,000 troops to take Australia. That is provided the guerillas have appropriate and adequate arms. That will never be while we have traitors in Canberra. Given that Janes predicts we will be invaded one would think the government would take some steps to create a Swiss style defence system. They don't. WHY?
Oz Guerillas - Swiss Style
Our guerilla force would need to be dispersed and mobile. Trail bikes are the go. One soldier on a trail bike, with a suitcase size antitank missile is a hard target to hit and very cheap. He can still knock out a multi million dollar tank. Another soldier with a .5cal sniper rifle can drop a helicopter. The guerillas would need night vision.
The presence of 600,000 armed civilians in a community would be incredible. Home invasion would drop to almost zero. Armed robbery would almost cease. We would all be safer. This is what has happened in Switzerland where there are 628,000 armed civilians. We can get 600,000 AK57 rifles, boxed, and complete with cleaning kits for $50 each. We could make Australia invasion proof for $30 million, a thirtieth of what we gave Indonesia to ease their economic crisis. The ALP/DEM/LIB/NAT/GREENS will make sure this does not happen. Are they traitors or fools?
We bought aircraft that require large fixed landing strips. These are good in a country like the USA but no use to a country like Australia. We needed aircraft that could take off from a cattle station or a beef road. They have been available and cheap for well over 20 years. The Harrier Jump Jet is capable of vertical/short takeoff and landing. Wrong choices are not accidents. I used to think it was stupidity at the top. It is not stupidity.
We could have bought simple portable radars the size of a small caravan with a range of 250 miles instead we bought monstrous fixed equipment worth megadollars. We wasted millions putting in fire protection systems that rang warning bells for a few seconds then flooded the building with poisonous fire suppressant gas. A radar is less prone to fire and has better fault protection circuits than your TV. We paid multi millions to force the manufacturer to replace the transmitter output valve with a toy valve. This necessitated rewriting the handbooks and made it a special order (not off the shelf). More big money. This reduced that area covered by the radar from 785,000 square miles to 196,000 square miles. The original radar (with one additional site) would have given Australia total east coast cover. For much more money we got a quarter of that cover. I see this as commercial corruption and deliberate defence sabotage.
The Mirage and F-111
We bought aircraft designed to deliver nuclear warheads then armed them with iron bombs designed to destroy wooden bridges. The aircraft were not suited for this task. What good would the Mirage or F-111 be against the Chinese, Japanese or Indonesians? We found what put the Japs back in their box and it made a big flash and a big bang. Nothing else works.
We either arm or suffer invasion. Being armed is what deters greedy invaders. If well armed, and protected by 600,000 guerillas, we would be too tough to be tempting. We could be safe, that is if the ALP/DEM/LIB/NAT/GREENS were on our side. They are not.
It is your children who will be bayonet bait if we are overrun. It is your children or grand children who will be baby bayonet kebabs. That is reality. We do not live in a very nice world and it will not change just because some people choose to stick their heads in the sand. You can get this article on defence discussed in your clubs, unions, RSL, league, society etc. You might just wake enough apathetic Australians to the danger they face to turn the tide in our favour.
The Australian government sent our troops to Vietnam and Korea knowing full well that they were serving under a Soviet commander who had to give approval before any air, ground or sea strike could be initiated against the communists. The communists knew in advance where when and how we would attack and were well prepared to slaughter our young soldiers. Why so? The United Nations "Charter" stipulates that this has to be so forever. Who would agree to such treason? "EACH ONE OF US THAT SERVED IN KOREA OR VIETNAM. SERVED UNDER THE TOTAL COMMAND OF A SOVIET GENERAL!!" Here are the names of the Soviets and the dates they served as "Under-Secretary" of the Security Council of the United Nations, thus, the highest military commander of all United Nations fighting forces anywhere in the world .......... including all military forces of the United States. These names and information were obtained from the United Nations yearbooks up to 1983.
Year Soviet General's Name
1946-49 Arkady Alexandrovich Sobolev
1949-53 Constantine E. Zinchenko
1953-54 Ilya S. Tehernychev
1955-57 Dragoslav Protich
1958-59 Antoly Dobrynin
1960-62 George Petrovich Arkadev
1962-63 Eugeney D. Kiselev
1963-64 Valdimir Paulovich Suslov
1965-67 Alexei Efremovitch Nesterenko
1968-73 Leonid N. Kutakov
1973-78 Arkady N. Shevchenko
1978-80 Mikhail D. Sytenko
1981-83 Viacheslav A. Ustinov
(Source: TREASON IN HIGH PLACES by Lt. Col. F.P. "Bud" Farrell, U.S.A.F Ret.)
The Enemy Within
The major parties have an agenda to populate Darwin with Indonesians, a ploy that would give us a fifth column in the event of war. This plan may well be forced on government by a United Nations agenda. There is no doubt that Indonesians are welcome and well educated British and South Africans fleeing mad Marxist blacks are not. Indonesian is a compulsory second language in the NT. Why? There were very few Indonesians there before the "multicultural" agenda.
There is no way you will get the major parties to introduce effective defence to Australia. They have an agenda. That agenda requires that we be totally disarmed. The Liberals signed it in 1981. The ALP ratified it in 1983. It was passed into Australian law in 1984. It was hidden in the Anti Discrimination Act. All fluffy talk by the various defence ministers is a blind to keep you quiet while they proceed with their agenda. I don't know why. YOU ask them WHY.
Warrant Officer A R (Tony) Pitt, RAAF, Retired. Technical Instructor/Computer Systems
Officer/Technical Writer/Administrator in Radio, Radar, Navigation Aids
This author has written and put into perspective my views as I have been stating for years.
Whether or not we are willing to admit it, one day Australians will have to fight the Indonesians. And it will be recorded that Australia would have been the only country in man's history that had trained another Nation to conquer her.
It may not be in my lifetime but it will happen.
Best start learning how to speak Indonesian as a second language because you're going to need it.
A well-written article and deserves at least some consideration as a wake up call for your grandchildren's future may be as slave labor in some Indonesian rice paddy as "white coolies".