SUBMISSION
for
AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
9th November 1997
by
GRAHAM L. PATERSON
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. PHILOSOPHY
3. OUR PRESENT CONSTITUTION
4. PEOPLES' RIGHTS
5. GOOD GOVERNMENT
6. CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONS
7. CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
8. HEAD OF THE NATION
9. THE JUDICIARY
10. COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the ARMED FORCES
11. A LIVING CONSTITUTION
INTRODUCTION
This submission is a copy of the one made to the Prime Ministers Office as a result of his invitation on the Convention Ballot papers.
It has been received and will be provided to all the delegates as Submission No. 72.
Having read a lot of the literature currently on issue I find an absolute silence on the foundation Philosophy upon which all arguments should be based.
Until such time that the protagonists are prepared to define the respective Philosophies upon which they build their case then the whole exercise of the Convention will be a waste of time.
The questions that must be answered are
My premise is the Constitution of Australia belongs to the people of Australia - it does not belong to the Government and it certainly does not belong to any political party.
In my view, all changes to the Constitution should originate from the people - changes should never originate from the Parliament who, as history has shown, only propose amendments when they have something to gain from the change.
All these issues relate directly to the Philosophy which should, and must, form the basis for any discussion on the Constitution.
The following notes set out some of the ideas and issues that should be addressed well before any meaningful consideration can be given to the Monarchy/Republic question.
Until such time as there is some sort of general agreement as to the Philosophy that must underpin the Constitution there will be little hope of ever reaching any reliable consensus.
Without this Philosophic understanding it will be impossible to propose the many essential amendments that will have to be made if ever Australia converts to a Republican system.
What is ironical is that the Australian Constitution is in desperate need of many essential Amendments right now.
It must be made into a truthful, non-hypocritical, and relevant, Constitution which properly reflects the political system that is currently in place.
The true authority must be reasserted by the people to make the Australian Constitution into a proper peoples Constitution - something it never has been even from its’ inception.
PHILOSOPHY
Each of us, whether we know it or not, live our lives according to some form of philosophy. The reality is that it is philosophy that governs our Society and it is therefore essential that our Constitution must be the written expression of the philosophy, which we, as a Society of Individuals, wish to live our lives.
There are fundamentally two methods by which Societies can be governed - one is by force, the other is by Law.
We must therefore make an assumption that our Society wishes to be governed by the rule of law. To assume any other premise would make this whole exercise futile.
If we accept this we must then define the principles, or basic philosophy, by which all laws must abide. This philosophy and these principles should be set out in our Constitution.
The word "our" is used advisedly because there are a number of different approaches to Constitutional drafting being used in the World.
In my view, the only correct approach is the one whereby the people of a Nation own the Constitution and define in it what powers (i.e. control of their affairs) they wish to delegate to their elected or appointed representatives. It must also define what limits and controls they wish to place on the delegation of these powers.
By defining and limiting these powers in the Constitution it will effectively ensure that no group of delegates will be able to manipulate, or extend, them without direct authority of the people.
This same definition, and limitation, must also apply to the High Court of the country in that they must not have the right to infringe the fundamental philosophy of the Constitution.
The Constitution should also deal with the people's right to exert their authority over any representative, either elected or appointed, who does not perform their duties honorably.
The Constitution should enshrine the basic fundamental Rights of LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS of each and every citizen of the Society and must forever preclude any Government from tampering with these Rights by way of Legislation.
It is a fact that no Rights can be held sacred and inviolate under Legislation that can be changed at whim by any Government of the day.
The primary truth is, that Rights belong to the people and no Government has the authority, or power, to say what Rights the people may or may not have - only the people can do this and it must be done in their Constitution.
If the people so wish they may define which Rights they are prepared to compromise, e.g. self defence, but it is the people who lay down the limits of this compromise. Any Rights not so prescribed, or otherwise specifically dealt with in the Constitution, remain automatically a Right of the people and is never the possession of any Government.
All people of our Nation must be deemed to have the inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. From these basic Rights stem all other Rights.
People form a Society in the hope that it will provide them with the opportunity to live, work and cooperate together, on the basis of mutual convenience, mutual benefit and mutual respect. Through Society, each of us hope we may more easily pursue our paths to individual happiness.
People do not form a Society to seek misery - they do not form a Society to elect a Dictator and they do not form a Society to allow a Government to assume greater importance than the Society itself.
Good Government therefore, is based on the Rights of each of the Individuals of it's Society and no Nation of people can legitimately have an interest in a Government based on any other foundation.
All laws therefore, must stem from the basic pronunciation of the inalienable Rights of the Citizens and must be subordinated to this principle.
This basic pronunciation is made by way of our Constitution so that all laws derived from the Constitution will apply equally to all individuals, whether to protect or punish, whether majority or minority, irrespective of colour, creed, sex or religion.
All people of our Nation, in terms of the Constitution and it's resultant laws, must be considered equal.
The people of a Society elect a group of delegates to form a Government, fundamentally, for one purpose only. They delegate to this group the authority to protect the Rights of every individual in our Society. This authority is granted within the framework of the Constitution and in terms of a rational and objective code of Rules.
This recognition of Individual Rights is the means of subordinating Society to Moral Law.
A moral Society is a just Society.
Thus the principle of Good Government is born when citizens of a Nation wish to secure their Rights as Individuals and create a Constitution for this specific purpose.
OUR PRESENT CONSTITUTION
The present Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is, in truth, basically an agreement between State power entities defining which powers, relating to control over people, they wish to delegate to a central power entity known as the Commonwealth Government.
The Act, in effect, proclaims the philosophy that State Governments control the people and have the right to delegate these controls as they see fit. It further espouses the philosophy that the Central Government is, supposedly, the fountainhead of authority and can override State Laws if they do not conform to Centralist power demands.
Nowhere in the present Constitutional Act does it declare that the people are the fountainhead of all Authority in relation to any Government. Nowhere in the present Constitutional Act does it set out our inalienable Rights, the protection, of which, should and must, form the cornerstone of our Governments responsibilities.
As I have stated above, the Constitution of our country, whether we like it or not, is an expression of the basic philosophy by which we, as a Society, wish to live our lives.
Until such time that the people recognise this and demand genuine change for a Constitution to protect our Rights and ensure our freedoms, then, we must be forever on guard to see that any changes that are made do not result in any increase in the already excessive power which Governments have over our lives.
Whatever happens the Reserve Powers of the Governor General, as contained in the present Constitution, should not be diminished, in fact, if anything, they should be strengthened and better enunciated by means of a clear cut set of guidelines .
Provided the following two fundamental principles are recognised, and adopted, in any new, or altered, Constitution then it really becomes immaterial whether the system is a Republic or a Constitutional Monarchy.
These two crucial principles are
It would appear abundantly clear that it is going to be a very difficult, and somewhat pointless task, to convert our present Constitution into a so-called Republican manifesto via the minimalist approach. In truth, this will not result in any meaningful change to the present system unless, of course, there is a separate agenda to incorporate real changes that are not germane to a Republican democracy.
What is of crucial importance is the method that will eventually be used to amend the Constitution.
It is patently obvious that a major rewrite of the Constitution will be absolutely essential in any change to a Republican system and it is equally obvious that this sort of total rewrite will NOT be put to the people in its final form.
The question therefore is, how do we, the people, protect ourselves from subtle, minor changes to the PRINCIPLES AND INTENT of the Constitution or even, for that matter, from major changes that will, inevitably, be inserted.
The problem will be greatly magnified especially when attempts will be made by Politicians, Lawyers and Bureaucrats to commandeer this sort of rewriting.
For far too long the Australian Constitution has been a ‘play thing’ of the Politicians and Lawyers to use, and manipulate, for their own vested interests.
PEOPLES' RIGHT
Much has been said about peoples' Rights but when it all said and done there is really only 3 basic Rights. These are
These subordinate Rights are
Most of our Rights are covered in our inheritance of the British Common Law judicial system. Provided the question of Rights is properly addressed in the Constitution, and related to this heritage, then there is little real need for a separate Bill of Rights as the Constitution should effectively constrain Governments from encroaching too far.
That is, of course, provided the High Court and the Governor General, or Head of the Nation, do their jobs properly by upholding the principles, and intent, of our Constitution.
The fallacy of trying to write a separate Bill of Rights is amply illustrated by the 1992 Queensland Government’s EARC report. After 432 pages of what turns out to be, the promotion of vested interests, EARC came up with a 19 page draft for a Bill of Rights.
This is then followed by a 37 page Explanatory Memorandum in a furtive effort to explain what the initial Bill really means.
What is unfortunately, totally missing from this exercise is any attempt to spell out the responsibilities that go with any claim for Rights. The other aspect that is also totally ignored is that the vast majority of the claimed Rights come at a cost.
The Bill omits to explain why certain people in the Society should be held responsible for providing so many of the claimed Rights just to satisfy the demands of other groups who seek to gain a special advantage.
As mentioned above it is a particularly cynical exercise to incorporate Rights in Legislation. Firstly, because the implication is made that Rights are the property of Governments to administer as they see fit and, second, by incorporating Rights in Legislation they can be changed at the whim of Government.
In our modern Society and, in fact, in many past Societies, freedom and liberty are directly linked to what is termed economic independence. In essence economic independence means having sufficient purchasing power to balance the goods produced and available for consumption.
Unfortunately, under our current economic and financial systems this can never happen because of the nature of Credit creation and the, woefully inadequate, methods of distributing purchasing power to the Society as a whole.
Credit creation represents a valuation of people's productive capacity, of their abilities, their labour, their inventiveness, their foresight, their planning for the future and, as such, the enormous power of credit creation really belongs to the people - not to the Government - and certainly not to any select group of private individuals such as Bankers.
The creation of the Commomwealth Bank in the early part of this century was an excellent example of the Government properly administering their responsibility in respect to the peoples’ ownership of their power to create credit.
The history of the past 200 years has aimed at producing more with less labour - we have seen an increasing acceleration along the road to greater efficiency, higher production, less labour, until now, when we have arrived at the stage where this has become a reality.
Along the way though, we lost sight of the purpose of production - there is only one true purpose - and that is consumption.
If we produce but do not provide adequate means of consuming this production then the whole process becomes futile.
This futility leads inevitably to Trade wars (as are now occurring throughout the World) and ultimately to military wars to effectively destroy the stockpile of unconsumed production. The root cause of this whole crazy cycle is our current financial system that demands greater and greater production to pay for the ever increasing scale of credit creation.
The side effects of this so called economic reality is one of increasing pollution, increasing unnecessary exploitation of resources, increasing degradation of our earth, increasing alienation of people, increasing destruction of anything that stands in the way of progress and increasing denial of individual Rights.
If we want to change this cycle we must look to changing the financial system that creates, and perpetuates, this ongoing destruction.
GOOD GOVERNMENT
Our present Constitutional Act uses the term Good Government at least twice, (Articles 51 and 52 under Part 5 - Powers of Government) but nowhere does it define what is meant by good.
The Constitution bestows the responsibility on Parliament to provide good Government but in neglecting to define the term it opens up the question of who's Good? - Parliament's good or the peoples’ good?
The question of good or bad applies to only one single class of entities on this earth and that is living creatures. It is the fact of life that makes the question of good or bad possible. Life is the fundamental value from which all values are derived. An action that sustains life is good while one that destroys life is bad.
This is the Code of Ethics which the morality of individual Rights demands. Rights are a moral concept - they are not automatic - they are not guaranteed - but, in order to recognise this concept of Individual Rights, one must accept, or acquire, a moral philosophy.
Life, however, is a matter of constant choice and even the acceptance of a morality that defines the Rights of the Individual is, in itself, a matter of choosing.
Thus all decisions involving our life and our well being demand we make a choice between what we consider good and what we consider bad. Before we can make these decisions we must have a set of values to give us guidance for our decisions.
This set of values is our Code of Ethics and will help us decide what is of benefit to our life and well-being as well as enhancing our search for happiness. Provided these decisions do not encroach on, or deny anyone else's rights, then they can be defined as good,
good Government must be based on what is good for the life and well-being of the citizens - of every individual citizen in the Society - it must be based, therefore, on the Rights of the Individual.
No Nation of people can have any moral interest in a Government base on any other foundation - no Nation should have an interest in being wrong.
Any change to the Constitution must be made with the intention of being a change for the better thus opening the doorway to the whole question of good or bad.
That question can only be answered by going back to the philosophic basis of our Society and clearly defining, and understanding, the philosophic parameters under which those changes will be made.
CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONS
Christian principles form the basis of our Society whether we like it or not. For the large majority of Australians, Christianity is at the root of most of our heritage and traditions.
The 10 Commandments remain the cornerstone in establishing the Rules for living together in a Society and, to all intent and purpose, these Rules are Universal to most modern civilisations.
Unfortunately in modern society, the cornerstone appears to be crumbling somewhat around the edges, mainly, I would venture to say, because of International agendas, and pragmatic Governments, who deliberately deny the concept of Principles.
The Christian ideals of chilvary, service, sympathy and charity are no longer the ideals of Society - the humanist approach has been allowed to gain the ascendancy and now openly promotes confrontation of sex against sex, race against race, children against parents and wives against husbands.
The humanist philosophy seems to be aimed at destroying the concepts of marriage and family and at the same time undermining the established traditions in any way it can.
The primary aim does not appear to be related to freedom of the individual or the betterment of Society but more like the destruction of the Christian principles that form the foundation of our community.
By destroying our set of value standards and not offering anything in their place except, "there are no standards and it's everyone for themselves" the humanists are well on the way to achieving the decadence they seem to covet.
Much of this change in community attitudes has been actively promoted by Government and, unfortunately, not very forcibly opposed by modern day Religions. Both of these organisations have come to see themselves as being more important than Society itself.
It is therefore, in my view, somewhat unproductive to try and argue the merits, or otherwise, of the Constitution in terms of Christianity. So many people in today's Society seem to hold religion in so low a regard when dealing with their daily lives that they would have difficulty in relating the Constitution to Christian Principles.
The fact remains that the whole of the foundation of our Australian democracy stems from the Christian roots of the British Monarchical system and the resultant mass of Common Law that enshrines the freedoms we so carelessly take for granted.
No system is perfect and I dare say none ever will be, but we should reflect on the alternatives that abound throughout the world. There seem to be few, if any, better than the one we have. This does not mean our present system cannot be improved but improvements must build on the existing foundations and not reduce, or destroy, the safeguards we already have.
As Individuals, as citizens, as free people and as a Nation, the single greatest danger we face is that of unchecked Government. This includes our own Government as much as any foreign Government.
If we cannot control Government by Law then there is no other recourse but force if we wish to avoid servitude. The examples of this course of action have been amply demonstrated throughout history and in more recent times it is especially horrendous in so many of the Republican systems around the World.
We need to learn from this and ensure we do nothing to reduce or weaken the existing checks we already have on the Government. In fact we should take the opportunity to enhance and strengthen these controls if we convert to a Republican system.
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
Our present Age has been one of great change. The future is likely to see an increasing rate of on-going change, but, our ability to foretell the future with any degree of certainty, is definitely, one attribute that humans seem to lack. It would therefore seem prudent to ensure that any rewrite of the Constitution includes a Review mechanism. This mechanism must be designed to allow THE PEOPLE a clear cut method of reviewing its effectiveness at predefined, regular intervals.
On the basis that the Constitution is, or should be, principally about protecting people from the arbitrary power of both the Government and the High Court, the people must be able to censure both these organisations when they overstep the philosophical basis of the Constitutional guarantees.
One clear example of this is the Franklin Dam issue when both the High Court and the Government bypassed the intent and meaning of the present Constitution to override the States in direct contradiction of Article 100. In my view the issue was one that should have been settled by a referendum of the people. The High Court has never been authorised by the people to radically change the Constitution.
There are many other examples where Parliament has effectively changed the intent of the Constitution through Legislative avenues without seeking the approval of the people.
The Australia Act of 1986 is a classic example. The people must therefore have a means of redressing these encroachments of their Rights and freedoms.
The people must be able to demand that Parliament put these issues to the Nation through a Referendum.
The type of Review system I would like to see in place is, at least once every 10 years, each State must hold a Constitutional Convention culminating in a National Convention.
The format of each of these Conventions would require that they be chaired by a person completely independent of Parliament, the Public Service and the High Court.
The principle functions of these Conventions would be in three separate and distinct areas
No Government can be trusted with any sort of open cheque that they inevitably seem to use in ways never mentioned, or indicated, initially. This means that each and every foreign agreement, or protocol, that impinges on our laws and becomes enforceable on Individual Australians in this country, must be approved separately by referendum of the Australian people.
If the law is good it will be carried but if it is not it will be defeated. The people have more than enough commonsense to know what is right for them and what is not.
we neither need, nor ask, any Government to tell us what is right for us. Governments are not there to tell us what we should think nor are they there to give us what other people think we should have.
There should be no major restrictions on calling referendums for any of the above situations outside the periodic Constitution Reviews suggested above. The principle considerations would be cost, proximity to an election and the real urgency, if any, of the issue concerned.
HEAD OF THE NATION
The single most critical function of any National Head, whatever their title may be, must always be to act as the peoples' independent, overriding check on the unfettered powers of any Government of the day.
To perform this task the National Head must be impartial and, most importantly, above politics.
The system of selecting Governor Generals over the years has been relatively successful except the parties in power have sometimes used their position to appoint people whom they have judged to be favourable to themselves.
As it has turned out the appointees, to their immense credit, have clearly seen the import of their position and accepted their higher duty of representing the Sovereign as the protector of the peoples' rights and interests.
Because the current Constitution still retains some, albiet limited, access to the Governor General as the Queen's representative, the position is still immensely important as a bulwark and protection against unbridled Government power.
In my view, any National Head must always have a set of reserve powers that ought to be spelled out as guidelines.
These reserve powers would be specifically intended for use in situations where the Government breaches the Constitution.
It is probably impractical to lay down the Reserve Powers in specific terms in view of the difficulty in foreseeing possible future political crisis. However I do believe a set of Guidelines would be achievable with the single ultimate remedy, in all situations, being to send the Parliament back to the people to pass judgment.
There may be a reasonable argument for the National Head to arbitrate in a crisis situation provided this could never be used to compromise the National Office.
If the Monarch is to be removed as our, theoretical, final recourse, over and above the National Head, then the appointee must be approved by a wider majority than the Government in power. In my view the selection must be approved with at least 2/3 of both Houses of Parliament and, if it were practical, with the approval of each of the State Parliaments as well.
I believe it would be an extremely unwise decision to replace the Governor General with a purely ceremonial National Head.
Until the Constitution is rewritten to properly and adequately provide all the guarantees the people need, and, until it codifies all the necessary and ACCEPTABLE Conventions, then, we the people, must have an avenue of protection from Government.
This is even more important with the increasing politicising of the High Court that is rendering this body a less than reliable protector of Individual Rights.
Any National Head must not be able to act in an independent political manner and, in this respect, the checks on the Governor General seem to work admirably. The position should only assume an active participation in the political system when events trigger the need to apply the Reserve Powers.
From this standpoint it would not seem prudent to open the appointment to contested popular vote simply because no candidate would have any sort of platform to present. Any contest under these circumstances would ultimately be a popularity vote that, in the longer term, would probably lead to politicising the position.
The timing of any such popular vote would also become very crucial. If it were to coincide with a General Election then it would be extremely difficult to separate it from political contamination. Similarly if it were held between General Elections then it risks being used to either endorse or criticise the Government's performance.
With the process of popular election it is easy to see candidates inevitably being forced into developing some form of agenda to clarify the choice. If this occurs it would effectively destroy the whole concept of independence from the political process.
I believe a popular vote would not contribute to unifying the Nation - if anything its effect is more likely to be divisive.
I do not subscribe to the argument that the Federal Government should have the sole right to appoint the Head of the Nation on the basis that it is a Federal office.
This is both false and unacceptable because the Head of the Nation is a National office representing and supported by all Australians. This is quite clearly distinct and separate from a Federal Government that is usually elected on the support of about 50% of the voters.
Furthermore the appointment by the Government alone cannot but help put the office in the arena of State and Federal politics. It then makes it difficult to ensure a truly non - political and non - partisan nominee will be, both, appointed and be seen to be appointed.
I do not believe any Government of the day should have the power to remove the Head of the Nation - the position is not that of a vassal of the Government - it is a position of a protector of the people from the Government.
Any possible removal of the Head of the Nation should only be permissible on the grounds of incapacity to carry out the duties or for a proven breach of the Constitution.
Any action seeking to impeach the Head of the Nation should only proceed through the same process used for the appointment. This would seem fair and just, provided it excludes the Government being able to act alone in either case.
NOTE - I much prefer to use the term Head of the Nation rather than Head of State for the very good reason that State is analogous with Government whereas Nation relates to people. I presume that when you talk about the Head of State you mean the Nation's titular Leader and not the Governments'?
THE JUDICIARY
In the light of some of the more recent controversial decisions of the High Court and the obvious attempts by Governments to politically load the Court in their favour, the question arises as to what limits need to be placed on this body.
This then gives rise to the question as to what remedy is available when these limits are exceeded.
The Mabo case is an example of judicial legislation where their decision created a defacto law in contradiction to existing law. In my view the court has exceeded its' jurisdiction because it was not ruling on an interpretation of the Constitution but made an independent political decision.
The High Court's jurisdiction, as I read the Constitution, limits them to ruling on the basis of existing law or the Constitution. Where there is no law to interpret the High Court does not have the authority to make up a law to suit themselves.
Their duty is to point out any anomalies where they consider Government action is warranted, and hand the question back to the political process for resolution.
A similar situation occurs with the Franklin River issue where there was a clear cut conflict of intent between interpretation of Section 51(XX1X) and Section 100.
Nowhere does the High Court have the authority to arbitrarily change the intent of the Constitution and especially not on the basis of so called public opinion when that opinion had never been tested Nationally by referendum.
Issues of conflict such as this need to be dealt with through the political process and, if they involve changing the intent of the Constitution, then they must go to referendum. I simply do not believe that the Constitution ever intended that any and all foreign treaties, signed by the Federal Government, would automatically override State authority. If they had so intended, then surely, such a crucial issue would have been included in the original agreement between the States and the Federal Government.
By its' action the High Court seems to be setting itself up as being above Parliament and above the Constitution. The whole question of the Judiciary really comes back to the question of What is the philosophic basis of our Society and our Constitution?.
I believe this philosophic base has to be the cornerstone of every High Court decision relating to the Constitution.
Our Society's philosophic base is Christianity and the traditions of the British Monarchy, dating back to the Magna Carta. This includes the whole body of Social history and experience encompassed in British Common Law, all of which, fundamentally deny the principle of arbitrary decision making.
The High Court has become an organisation that, like the Government, sees itself as more important than the Society that created it. Both are becoming organisations to be feared.
When did Society pass a decree saying that the High Court is always right? When was our Society ever asked if they wished to pass this cloak of infallibility onto the shoulders of any group of men or women?
What if the High Court's decisions are wrong ?
If a relatively small group of learned people on a High Court cannot reach an unanimous decision on really crucial questions then surely that is proof that any decision is questionable?
Whenever there is even one voice of dissent in High Court decisions then the issue needs to be handed back to the people for resolution in a referendum.
The people are the ones' who must have the final say as to what laws they wish to accept in the governance of their Society. They have agreed to delegate this to their Parliamentary system - they have not delegated this to an unelected High Court and it is highly presumptuous of the Court to think so.
Under a Republican system (and even under the system we have today) the role of the High Court, when dealing with Constitutional issues, needs to be clearly defined to ensure their decisions cannot be allowed to change the purpose and intent of the Constitution.
COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES
As the Governor General , under our present Constitution, is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Australia, this issue is one that will require review when considering any change to the position.
The very clear primary role of the Armed Forces of Australia is the defence and protection of Australian Citizens from foreign aggression.
If the role of the Armed Forces is to be enlarged to cover, for instance, International peace keeping then the role ought to be approved by the people of Australia, irrespective of any treaty signed.
If the Armed Forces are to be deployed in any foreign conflict they would then be doing so in the knowledge they have the support of the Australian people.
This was not so in the case of the Vietnam conflict and, as a result, a considerable amount of division was caused in the Australian Society.
Once the Australian people indicate their support of any such activity then the final decision of the conditions applying to deployment ought to be agreed to by Parliament rather than the Government alone. This suggestion is based on the fact that any overseas commitment concerns all Australians and not just an elected majority.
On the basis that the principle of swearing an oath of allegiance will be maintained by the Armed Services, (and for that matter, by anyone who is required to so swear allegiance) then such allegiance must be sworn to the Australian People with the promise to uphold the Constitution. It should not be an oath to the Government or to the Head of the Nation unless it clearly states that both are purely servants and representatives of the people.
I do not believe there should be any avenues open for the Armed Services to become a political tool of the Government to enforce policy in what would be classified as a civil matter. Where Government policy is of such major concern as to contemplate the use of the Armed Services to quell civil dissatisfaction then, clearly, there is something drastically wrong with the policy.
By the same token, there should be no possibility of the Armed Services becoming the tool of any single person, such as the Head of the Nation.
Provided adequate Constitutional checks are in place to ensure the Armed Forces are only used for their proper function, as stated above, then it would seem infinitely preferable to make the Head of the Nation the Commander in Chief rather than any other personage.
This is especially applicable if that person were to be a politician.
A LIVING CONSTITUTION
Finally, if we are going to fundamentally change our governmental system, and alter our Constitution in, what will be, a profoundly different conception, then we must make the Constitution a living document of which all Australians can be proud.
In America, and also in Indonesia, to name but two countries, their Constitutions are just such living documents. Their Constitutions are taught in schools, they represent the founding philosophies of these Societies - people live by their Constitutions and use the fundamental principles as part of their daily lives.
This is not to say that those Constitutions are by any means perfect, but their origins, in both cases, stem from the people. The original intent was always to protect the people from the unlimited and despotic power of Government.
The fact that Governments, over the years, have systematically ignored and corrupted these original principles does not detract from the true intent and purpose of the Constitutions. We need to make every effort to prevent this corruption by both, the Government and the High Court, by identifying the weaknesses and eliminating them from our Constitution.
Our Australian Constitution has never been a living Constitution - it has never had a sense of belonging - principally because it has never been a peoples' Constitution.
It is based on the philosophy that Governments are the source of power and it is for this reason there has never been any effort to promote a widespread understanding or knowledge of the Constitution.
The other reason for the general lack of comprehension about the Constitution is that it has effectively been hijacked by the legal profession and the politicians. Together they have developed a so-called set of Conventions relating to how they want the Constitution to work. Because these Conventions are not committed to the written word the hijackers are able to play the game Jokers wild with the whole pack stacked against the people.
What we need to do is take this opportunity to convert our Constitution into a living document by making it relevant to the everyday life of all our citizens.
If we spell out the real source of all authority - the people - if we spell out the axioms that we hold true - that each of us is entitled to our own lives, to our own liberty and to our own endeavours in the pursuit of our own individual happiness - then this document will become meaningful.
we need to proclaim these truths and to make sure everyone knows that the Government - the Parliament - the Laws - the Courts - the Defense Forces - and the financial System - are there for our protection and to do our bidding - and not vice versa.
If we can grasp this opportunity and spell out our Nation's philosophy then it matters not one whit whether we are a Monarchy or a Republic.
What matters is that the people have proclaimed their Rights and enshrined the concept that Systems, Governments, Public Services, work for us - for the benefit of our Society - and we do not work for the benefit of the systems.