CONSTITUTIONAL MOVES AGAINST CROWN

Jeremy Lee adds his voice on the Constitution and the manipulations of international finance Section 61 of the Constitution reads: "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth …"

This arrangement was made with the consent of the Australian people at the time of Federation, and all opinion polls show Australians still wish to preserve our Monarchy. It is, however, anathema to the socialists. The Weekend Australian August 30, 31/86) said: "The Constitutional Commission has invited public submissions on the controversial question of the extent of the reserve powers of the Governor General. An issues paper released yesterday by the Commission's Advisory Committee on Executive Government asks whether the Governor General should have any reserve powers at all. If so, it asks what they should be, whether they should be written into the Constitution, or otherwise expressed, how they should be exercised, and whether such exercise should be reviewed. The Committee is chaired by Sir Zelman Cowen. It also, of course, includes such robust and enlightened characters as Mr. Gough Whitlam and Mr. Peter Garrett of "Midnight Oil". Perhaps these gentlemen should be reminded that they are about 86 years too late. The powers they are questioning have already been written, with the peoples' consent, into our Constitution. It is certainly not for them to suggest its removal. The same Commission has also been entrusted with the carcass of the badly mauled Bill of Rights. They will, no doubt, spend our tax monies with gay abandon over the next eighteen months before coming up with the socialist version of a new bi-centenary Constitution which the people have not asked for, and which they do not want. This is a Socialist International Project. Why doesn't the Socialist International, therefore, pickup the Bill for this latest bit of indulgence?

A BANKER SPEAKS OUT

It's not often that the banking fraternity "blow the gaffe on each other" in public. However jealous they may be in private - and we have no doubt that many a banking knife has been buried in many corporate shoulder blades - there's certainly "honour among thieves" when it comes to public scrutiny. With good reason, we can add; for they are involved in the greatest racket of them all.

The Sun-Herald (August 24, 1986) reported: "Foreign exchange dealers and 'multinational banks are using "dirty tactics" to run down the dollar, according to the chief general manager of the Commonwealth' Development Bank, Mr. John Fletcher. "The multinational bankers should never be underestimated in the lengths they will go and the dirty tactics they will employ in pursuing their profit objectives," he said, "The international money market 'makes a rugby pack look like a play school." He made his comments in an address to the Farm Writers and Broadcasters Society of NSW...." Although he didn't name the banks, Mr. Fletcher said it was the large ones who were manipulating the Australian exchange market for their own ends. He went on to tell his audience: "First-hand, on-the-spot experience of what the international bankers did to Mexico when it was on its knees in early 1983 made me acutely aware of the dangers. Those bullyboys' version of the golden rule is 'whoever has the gold makes the rules'. Put another way, they believe that the rich nations should get richer and the poor nations poorer for all they care, shortsighted though that view is..."

In his last sentence, could Mr. Fletcher be referring obliquely to the maneuvers for the establishment of a New International Economic Order, being pushed by three groups all working together - the Socialist International - of which Prime Minister Hawke is a member - the Communist bloc, and the international bankers through such bodies as the Trilateral Commission, established by David Rockefeller? It was these huge international banks that Treasurer Paul Keating promised would never be allowed into Australia - before his party was elected into office. But shortly after the Hawke government came to power, Keating did a somersault, allowing 16 international banks to take their place in the Australian scene. Quite by coincidence, of course, he was nominated "international Treasurer-of-the-year" by Euro money within a twelve month. It will be interesting to see whether any of the Opposition spokesmen will demand an official inquiry into these startling allegations from a prominent Australian banker concerning the deliberate debasement of the nation's money.

THE EXTERNAL AFFAIRS POWER

A further Constitutional Commission "Issues Paper" has been issued. This one is all about the "Distribution of Powers" under item 80, "The External Affairs Power" We read: "It has been said that one of the principal reasons that induced Australians to federate was that, as regards all places outside Australia, they should speak with one voice and that as the interests of Australians in relation to external affairs were common to all, it was desirable to have one spokesman with one set of views instead of as formerly six spokesmen with six possible divergent sets of views. The provisions of section 5l (xxix) of the Constitution provide some expression to that view by empowering the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to 'external affairs'. 81. "An important example of the application of the power is provided by the power of the national Parliament to legislate for the implementation of treaties and other international agreements to which Australia has become a party."

There is more. Under "Summary of Issues", we read: "Should the federal Parliament retain its plenary authority to legislate for the implementation of any treaty or other international agreement regardless of its content or subject matter?"
Our comment. In our view, emphatically NO. The late Senator Ivor Greenwood, a former Commonwealth Attorney General, in a letter to a League official, warned many years ago that the Sexual Discrimination Bill was, in his opinion, definitely unconstitutional, and should be thrown out. This was before it was validated by the High Court of Australia in a 4-3 judgment. The Franklin Dam judgment further supported the right of the Commonwealth to legislate on treaties, and even force this legislation on the States, which could be opposed to such legislation. The Franklin Dam judgment is just such a case in point. Tasmania became constitutionally unable to build the Franklin Dam, which Tasmanians wanted, via their State Government.

The bitterness brought about by the High Court's decision along with its enforcement by the Commonwealth (Hawke) Government in this case is still simmering in Tasmania to this day. Perhaps we should clarify the constitutional position with respect to the Franklin Dam (& other) rulings. The Franklin Dam could still be built but only with the permission of the relevant Minister of the Commonwealth. This, of course was withheld.

The late Senator Ivor Greenwood insisted that the power of the Commonwealth to so legislate (as above) would have to be severely curbed. We agree with this. Parliamentary approval for the making of a treaty, as distinct from making of any consequential alteration in the domestic law of the land required by the treaty, is not required in Australia."
Our comment: It" should be for many reasons, such as publicity for democratic purposes Australians must know what's going on; hear the "other side" of the question in parliamentary debate; give the States the opportunity to sound their voices in the Senate the States' House, etc. There are many ways in which the power of the Commonwealth to impose legislation on States via the External Affairs power (rather, via the abuse of the External Affairs Power) could be severely curbed. This would almost certainly require amendment to the Australian Constitution by referendum. Possibilities are no treaties to be entered into by the Commonwealth without approval of the Commonwealth Parliament. Another is, the Commonwealth NOT to base laws on treaties with other countries, the United Nations etc., and which are binding on the States, without approval by the States, a majority of the States, etc. Another possibility is that the Commonwealth must not enter into a treaty without a certain majority of the Parliament (as is the case in the U.S.A. The American Senate must have a two-thirds majority to ratify a treaty). There is no shortage of clever constitutional lawyers to frame watertight protective Constitutional amendments. We shall look at further aspects of the Constitutional Commission issues Papers as they come to hand.

HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL NEW ZEALAND TOUR

Mr. Eric Butler returned to Australia last Sunday, September 14th, following an intensive three weeks tour of New Zealand, during which he addressed 21 meetings, participated in four radio programmes, one of these being with well known radio New Zealand personality Jessica Waddell, who withdrew an allegation of "fascism" which she had made in an interview with Phillip Adams early last year.
Mr. Butler also received excellent press coverage in several centres. New Zealanders were enthused by the news that the Bill of Rights and the proposed Council Amalgamation programme in Victoria had been decisively defeated. Mr. Butler said upon returning to Australia that Big Business generally was enthusiastic about the Lange government, as it was about the Hawke government in Australia.
There was a tremendous upsurge of concern in New Zealand, with many new groups emerging. At the Annual National Seminar and Dinner, at the conclusion of Mr. Butler's tour, Mr. Butler paid tribute to the tremendous leadership being provided by Mr. Bill Daly. "The Western world is far from defeated when it can produce young men of the calibre of Bill Daly", Mr. Butler said. The situation in New Zealand has developed to the stage where Mr. Eric Butler's tour is being followed by an organisational tour conducted by Mr. Jeremy Lee early in November.