by DAVID FLINT – THE Voice is not alone on the Federal Government’s radical change agenda.
To begin with, there’s the scheduled second attempt to impose a politicians’ republic – not only stripping away crucial checks and balances on the politicians and especially the prime minister, but also providing a presidential “election” worthy of some third-world countries.
Such a guided democracy will further undermine our century-old, fair process for conducting referendums.
Then there is a misinformation Bill not only breaching our ancient separation of powers and the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication, but also gagging ordinary Australians and exempting elites.
Mr Albanese also has no serious interest in fulfilling his promise to find, objectively, solutions to ensure no repetition of the constitutional breakdown during COVID.
He’s also “all in” on the politicisation of leading corporations, led by Qantas, and eerily similar to the State capitalism of authoritarian regimes.
Then, there has been a complete failure to restrain the excesses of the far-left ACT regime, especially in its seizure of the far better hospital for no other reason than that it was Catholic; plans to neutralise the Senate as the constitutionally envisaged States’ house; riding roughshod over farmers’ and others’ property rights and elementary environmental protection in furtherance of extremist climate ideology.
Not to mention his planning of “treaties” between the Commonwealth (as well as the States) with one part of the Australian population defined by race and the payment of “reparations” for alleged past wrongs.
He is elbow deep in borrowings at a level never anticipated and has engaged in financial allocations outside of the normal budgetary process; in comparison with other OECD countries.
He has failed to ensure the integrity of the electoral system, and has made immigration commitments without any regard to housing availability.
What will be next in the mayhem of the government’s change agenda?
Prime Minister Albanese says he wants to change Australia. This centres on significantly changing, if not overthrowing, our federal constitution.
But unlike most constitutions, this was actually approved by the people and re-affirmed in 1999 when the removal of the oldest and a key institution – the monarchy – was proposed.
We should never forget that this constitution has propelled our young country into the handful of countries which are the world’s oldest continuing democracies.
There is an increasingly justifiable fear among many Australians that the result will be to undermine our constitutional system and to destroy the achievements of generations.
It is hard to believe what some politicians see as excellence in government.
Paul Keating proposed to the nation that useless, expensive and time-wasting bane, what he claimed was a republic.
The fact is, that as a Federal Commonwealth under the Crown, Australia is already a republic. But rather than the monstrosity which was proposed, a politicians’ republic, Australia is a crowned republic.
By unleashing Malcolm Turnbull, Keating was responsible for the constitutional model the centrepiece of which was to turn the prime minister into a far more powerful and uncontrolled figure than any Westminster prime minister.
This was to be achieved by the device of replacing the governor-general with a powerless puppet.
As to what Keating admires, and no doubt many on the far-Left do, his 2017 Latrobe University lecture lends considerable guidance.
His apparently considered view as to ideal governance was revealed there when he said of Communist China: “That government of theirs has been the best government in the world in the last thirty years.”
The best government in the world?
Because of moves for change, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, the nation’s only organisation with living experience of actively winning a referendum – and that by a landslide – has decided to ask two crucial questions at a Sydney conference on the Monday before the referendum, October 9.
With exclusive contributions from John Howard, Tony Abbott, Alan Jones and others yet to answer, places can be reserved here at minimal cost.
The conference will also be available on demand on ADH TV.
It will ask two crucial questions.
First, what changes should not be made to our constitutional system? Second, what changes should be made?
The use of the term, “constitutional system” is deliberate.
While the federal constitution is first and foremost in our minds, we should forget neither the State constitutions nor the signal documents which marked the transition to full independence, from the Balfour Declaration, 1926, the decisions on the governor-general in 1930, through the Statute of Westminster, 1931 to the Australia Act,1986, which incidentally should have been referred to the Australian people for approval.
The need to refer to more than the federal constitution became obvious during the 1999 referendum campaign for a republic.
It also exposed the decision the fake republicans took then to limit the referendum to removing the Crown only at the federal level with the States continuing as constitutional monarchies, as experts said, a constitutional monstrosity.
ACM took advantage of this to demonstrate the unifying and wider role of the Crown.
Now in any campaign, you have to be very clear in what you believe in.
The ACM needed a motto which summarised this correctly, in addition to the charter drafted by High Court Justice Michael Kirby.
The motto adopted was, “To preserve, to protect and to defend our heritage: our Australian constitutional system, the role of the Australian Crown in it and our Flag”.
The reference to our constitutional system also recalls what has governed the conduct of affairs in Australia since the settlement in 1788 and also the view of the people as to what they expect to find in the constitution.
There is among the Australian people a view of the constitution which reflects remarkably Bolingbroke’s 18th-century definition of the British constitution.
He said this was that assembly of “laws, institutions, and customs derived from certain fixed principles of reason … that compose the general system, according to which the community has agreed to be governed”.
After over a century, a review of our constitutional system by an elected convention is overdue.
This will ensure that it is what the people overwhelmingly expect, especially in terms of our freedoms and responsibilities and in terms of the accountability of our public servants and elected politicians.PC