The coming referendum has failed the Constitutional Rules, and the State Governments and Federal Parliament have already not adhered to its conventions. The Australian Constitution has been changed illegally over a hundred times without Referendum by various governments who just ignore it’s directions in how government should be run. For instance, the Gonski plan for Education is an utter farce as the Federal Government has no rights to impose a national curriculum on States. It sounds good in theory, however a National curriculum sets the boundaries for what can be taught in schools that are funded by the government.
The subject of history is particularly problematic, given that lies told often enough, become truth, and our young are led astray, as their whole world view becomes skewed. Take for example the fact that schools used to teach that Australia was “settled”, but now the High Court has declared in a historic decision, that Australia was not settled, but was rather “invaded”. Simple enough declaration, but this hidden history also hid the genocide that was carried out in the name of the imperialist seeking Crown.
Another problem in our schools is that schooling is focused on “industry” which is short-lived, especially technology. A classical education teaches literature (not English), classical art and music and critical thinking by using logic among other subjects. There consists a communist conspiracy to dumb down our children which started after WWII, picking up the pace as each decade progressed.
In essence, the Gonski Funding plan is a red herring because improving education starts with what is considered “education” not the funding of such. Children could receive as good an education in a park, but its nice to have a roof incase it rains, and technology as an aid to learning. To read a free e-book called the ‘Dumbing Down of America’ by Charlotte Iserbyt, see the link in the side bar under Free E-books.
However, back to the Referendum, below is a copy of a letter I received which was sent to Senator Smith by Mr G. (Gerrit) H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B., where he asks why they are even bothering to ask people? It is of course another trick question, which is to allow bigger government which means more and more and more taxes, until Australians wake up enough to march in the streets.
Break your trance, wake up and smell the tyranny.
Email sent to: email@example.com
Dear Senator Smith,
I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST, and have grave concerns about the coming referendum (re s96), and the misleading details provided about it.
As a retired Professional Advocate I view that any debate about the legal consequences of a s96 amendment must be FAIR and PROPER.
In my view, to amend s96 would be dissasterous. I would undermine the very principles embedded in the constitution.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.- When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct, that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time, trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that too much care has not been exercised. END QUOTE
.Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE: Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who were responsible for doing so used the material they found in every Constitution before it, and probably they felt that they would be incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no word in it which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to come, when this Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to it; and by the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to see that there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution. END QUOTE
.I would also urge you to pursdue the s101 Inter-State Commission, which the Framers of the Constitution held should always be in place. It means that the Inter-State Commission and not a political minded government would be dealing with funding to what may be in the interest of each State,
.Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE: Mr. WISE.– If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each state might say-“We are favorable to this law, because we shall get £100,000 a year, or so much a year, from the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools,” and thus they might wink at a violation of the Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to occupy a few minutes in discussing it. END QUOTE
This too indicates that Education is a State matter and Commonwealth fuinding cannot be used to interfere and undermine State authority as to education as now is being done.
The (federal) constitution, in which the States in s106 are created, has a principle of separation of powers between the legislators, the executive and the judiciary. Municipal councils clearly have no such doctrine within themselves.
The Framers of the Constitution referred to the “State Government” as being the “Local Government“, and the “Federal Government” being the “central government”. It begs the question; How can “municipal councils” be a “local government” when the State Governments, that is constitutionally, already are their “local governments”?
Also, if “municipal councils” are corporations in some States and in NSW and Queensland now (since 2012) part of the Crown, then how can one elect councils for a State Department, as councils are once they become part of the Crown?
Also, consider the wage and other cost explosions once councillors take the position that they are entitled as Members of Parliament(s), for the same remunerations, perks, etc?
As you are a Senator to represent State interest, I look forwards to hear from you.
This email is very limited in context because it may turn you off if I sent a large volume, but my blog http://www.scrib.com/inspectorrikati has numnerous documents regarding constitutional issues.
For the record, I defeated on 19 July 2006, in the County Court of Victoria, the Commonwealth as to compulsory voting as the Framers of the Constitution held that registration and compulsory voting legislative powers should not be given to the Commonwealth.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people’s Constitution, not a lawyers’ Constitution.END QUOTE
Lawyers tend to misinterpret what the true meaning and application of the constitution is about.
Mr G. (Gerrit) H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
- Explainer: why are we having a referendum on local government? (theconversation.com)
- There’s growing anger over the Coalition’s support for the referendum on the recognition of local government. (jericho777.wordpress.com)
- Understanding the Justice System (rasmussen.edu)
- Gillard says Abbott backs referendum (news.theage.com.au)
- Leave The Constitution Alone – It Works Fine (gadabout-blogalot.com)
- The secret history of the Bill of Rights (salon.com)
- Power (scotusblog.com)
- Why the Right Hates Government (alternet.org)
- ‘Yes-No’ South Sydney: the federation referenda of 1898 and 1899 (historymatrix.wordpress.com)