Victor P Taffa

When former Health Minister John Della Bosca recently announced that the Royal Flying Service (R.F.D.S.) would have its operational capability reviewed the question that should be asked is the Minister treating the symptom or the cure?

 The problems at Hornsby, Dubbo, Ryde and many other public hospitals suggest that the funding levels are simply going to administration and not front line services.

 In a bid to save money the State Government is searching for another ‘cheaper’ alternative for a rural flying service that has served New South Wales for the past 80 years. However one could be forgiven for thinking that there is another underlying motive. Dubbo M.P. Dawn Fardell is concerned at the prospect of the less profitable areas of Dubbo losing medical aerial services.

 This downgrading of rural services is in keeping with Mudgee and Cooma losing both its air and rail services and many other rural towns losing its railway altogether. Living in Sydney is convenient whereas it is the ‘tyranny of distance’ that leaves rural people disconnected from facilities, advantages and employment opportunities.

 As an example it is a 30 minute drive from Muswellbrook to Singleton and a

further 30 minutes to Maitland. To travel a similar distance in metropolitan Sydney will see you pass from one side of the metropolitan area to another and drive through dozens of suburbs with modern facilities and transport connections.

 Following on NSW Nationals leader Andrew Stoner recent comments in the Sydney media regarding the Royal Flying Doctor Service it would be considered a usual business deal to change to a new carrier for aerial services in the country in the name of saving money.

 “Quite right, NSW Labor usually has ulterior motives behind such decisions their track record is shocking.”

 However after 14 years, going on 16 years of total failure in the administration of New South Wales there is always another underlining motive behind a supposedly noble motive of saving the taxpayer money.

As with the legal profession being sold the need to become ‘Special Counsel’ rather Than ‘Queens Counsel’ and the ongoing mistruths about climate change and the overwhelming need to ’streamline’ government and abolish State Governments, one could merely be slightly cynical and preposterous as to suggest that the real reason to move away from The Royal Flying Doctor Service is because of the Royal Prefix on the name of the service.

 The R.F.D.S most likely supports the Royal prefix on its name and so the Labor Party thought it easier to simply take away their need to use the R.F.D.S. and thus hide the ‘Royal’ from the public consciousness.

 In the name of ‘cleaning and restoring’ the Crown was also removed from every Post Office. Once again this move is simply republicanism by stealth. Republicans are also desperate to abolish State Governments and in particular the Upper houses of Parliament.

 The Labor Party at its 1984 Federal Conference passed a motion that Australia should become a republic. This was passed after former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam passed legislation to make Queen Elizabeth II as the Queen of Australia. This is notwithstanding the Constitutional crises that have affected Labor Governments.

 In 1932 NSW Governor Sir Philip Game dismissed Labor Premier Jack Lang from office and in 1975 Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed Labor Prime Gough Whitlam. In 1996 NSW Labor Premier Bob Carr removed the Governor from Government House, Sydney.

 So what is the real reason for the NSW Labor Government to save money? What really is wrong with the R.F.D.S? Surely it has nothing to do with the Royal prefix or does it?

 New South Wales Labor has shown once again that it is more spin cycles than a washing machine.

Federal Nationals Leader Warren Truss

Victor P Taffa

The Rudd Labor Government’s proposed carbon pollution reduction tax has claimed its first victim with the announcement today that Cement Australia’s Rockhampton plant is to be mothballed from September this year according to Federal Leader of The Nationals and Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Warren Truss.

“The Liberal and National Parties have warned that Labor’s carbon pollution reduction tax will lead to job losses and we are now seeing the beginning of the real impact of the scheme,”

Cement Australia specifically cited the Rudd Government’s carbon pollution reduction tax as one of the reasons for the closure of its Rockhampton plant in its statement saying “The Federal Government’s determination to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme has meant the long term prospects for the plant have been undermined so the business has taken a decision to resolve the matter in fairness to our employees.”

“Cement production is a significant CO2 emitter and therefore faces severe cost increases under Labor’s carbon pollution reduction tax. Other cement production will also be endangered. The tax acts as an incentive for these industries to leave Australia and relocate to other countries without a comparable carbon tax, costing local jobs while doing nothing to reduce global carbon emissions,” Mr Truss said.

Cement manufacture in Australia produces .8 tonnes of CO2 emissions per tonne of cement. When Australian cement plants close we will import cement from China where the CO2 emissions average 1.1 tonnes per tonne of cement. “Australian cement industry jobs will be lost but global carbon emissions will actually go up!” Mr Truss said.

This announcement is another blow to the Central Queensland economy which has already felt the impact of the downturn in the resources sector. “The wealth driving regions of our nation are already experiencing difficult times and the flawed carbon pollution reduction scheme will make things worse. The tax will cause job losses and increase the cost of living for Australian households as rising energy costs and emission taxes are ultimately passed onto consumers under Labor’s defective emissions trading plan,” Mr Truss said.

“Australia’s total emissions are only 1.4% of global carbon emissions. The action that we take will have a negligible effect on the environment but a devastating impact on jobs, the economy and the cost of living,” Mr Truss said

“It is time that the Member for Capricornia, Ms Kirsten Livermore and Member for Flynn, Mr Chris Trevor, stand up for their communities and common sense and point out the defects in Labor’s emissions trading scheme and loudly say NO to Kevin Rudd.” What is apparent is that the Carbons Tax is simply a new tax and not an improvement to the environment. 

NSW Shadow Minister for Emergency Services Melinda Pavey 

Shadow Minister for Emergency Services Melinda Pavey said today that the Liberal and Nationals gave an unequivocal commitment to ensuring that when in Government, the Rural Fire Service (RFS) will remain an independent, stand alone agency.

Leader of The Nationals Andrew Stoner moved a motion in Parliament to confirm that the Liberal and Nationals are firmly against the NSW Labor Governments recent proposal to amalgamate the RFS with the NSW Police Force, and instead called on the Government to commit to ensuring the agency retains independence.

“The Liberal and Nationals gave a 100 per cent commitment, that under a Liberal and Nationals Government, the RFS will remain a stand along agency,” Mrs. Pavey said.

“The Rees Labor Government had a chance to stand up for the RFS volunteers and to support the Liberal and Nationals motion to ensure the agency retains its independence but disappointingly the Minister for Emergency Services Steve Whan refused to support the motion and instead weakened it by amending it, which means the super department still remains in place.”

In contrast, the Member for the Blue Mountains Phil Koperberg congratulated Andrew Stoner and The Nationals for our commitment to ensuring the RFS retains its full independence.

Whilst Steve Whan was compliant in this super ministry proposal, Phil Koperberg and the RFS Association overturned the decision to bring the RFS under the control of the NSW Police Commissioner.

However the issue of retaining independence has still not been fully resolved. Under NSW Labor’s proposal, the RFS Commissioner still has the power to decide whether or not the RFS can be placed under the power of the NSW Police Commissioner.

“This explains why NSW Labor refused to support our motion. Under NSW Labor, there is still no guarantee that the RFS will retain its independence. In contrast, the Liberal and Nationals today gave a full commitment to the volunteers that the RFS will retain full independence, authority and integrity under a Liberal and Nationals Government.”

“I have met with and consulted with the RFS Association, Volunteer Fire Fighters Association and a number of volunteers on the ground who were extremely angered by NSW Labor’s proposal.

“The RFS is a unique agency comprised of thousands of volunteers, and they need to be led by someone who understands the nature of it being largely a volunteer organisation.

“Volunteers need to report to their own agency head, not the Police Commissioner,” Mrs. Pavey said.

Victor P Taffa

The Northern Territory was annexed from South Australia in 1911 only 10 years after the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Northern Territory has a vast abundance of minerals that along with Western Australia and Queensland will lead our country well into the 21^st century. So what is the difference between Northern Australia and Northern Territory?

 Western Australia and Queensland are States and the Northern Territory is just a Territory of the Federal Government. The mineral wealth of the Northern Territory is not spread in the way the authority of a State Government is able to provide.

 Territory status is holding back the development of the ‘top end’ and this is leaving the lives of many Indigenous Australians in abject poverty. Canberra tells Darwin what to do and has little real decision making power.

 Many people argue that State Government’s should be abolished. This is a good theory but the practical reality is that Canberra would end up divesting duties to areas that would be based on old State boundaries and there would be great conflict between the hundreds of Regional Governments and the Federal Government. Many small hospitals would have to close and with no guarantee of new large impersonal hospitals opening quickly.

 As there is already the states of South Australia and Western Australia, the new state would most appropriately be called Northern Australia. There has been some talk that a new state could be established without a State Governor. Australia is not a Republic and as such the new State of Northern Australia would require its own constitution although this could contain a preamble for Indigenous Australians and a State Governor with appropriate access and authority to Her Majesty Elizabeth II.

 Access to Queen Elizabeth is still required because as with a cricket match or football game a neutral umpire is not only preferable but essential for good governance.

 The current situation is that there is a Chief Minister in the Territory. Prior to Federation, the Colony of New South Wales had a Prime Minister. W.J.Lyne served from 14 Sept 1899-27 Mar 1901.Upon achieving statehood, the Chief Minister should be called Premier as in the existing states.

 Statehood for the Northern Territory is largely dependent upon Territorians supporting it at a referendum. A few years ago this was defeated and that result has only been to the detriment of Territorians.

 Statehood would require adjustment to that chamber that former Prime Minister Paul Keating once described as ‘unrepresentative swill’. Prior to 1984 the six existing states elected 10 Senators and there were 2 for the Territories. This gave a total of 64 Senators. Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke increased the states’ Senate representation to 12 Senators plus the 2 from the territories. This gave a total of 76 Senators.

 Has an additional 12 Senators provided voters with greater representation or accessibility to politicians? Upon the granting of Statehood for the Northern Territory the Senate representation from the seven States should be 10 each plus 2 for the A.C.T. This would allow for a total of 72 Senators instead of the 76 at present.

 Senate Representation before Northern Territory Statehood:

6 States:                                                                                                         12

N.T.:                                                                                                                    2

A.C.T.:                                                                                                                2

Total:                                                                                                                76

Senate representation after Northern Territory Statehood:

A.C.T:                                                                                                                  2

New South Wales:                                                                                         10

Northern Australia:                                                                                     10

Queensland:                                                                                                    10

South Australia:                                                                                            10

Tasmania:                                                                                                        10

Victoria:                                                                                                           10

Western Australia:                                                                                       10

Total:                                                                                                                 72

Should there be a concern with the readjustment of political representation one should look no further than in New South Wales. In 1988 the Unsworth Government increased size of the Legislative Assembly from 99 seats to 109. The Greiner Government reduced the House back to 99 seats and the Carr Government reduced the chamber to the current size of 93 seats. This represented a net loss of 16 seats.

 Changes to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly:

 Unsworth Assembly:                                                                        109 seats

Greiner Assembly:                                                                                99 seats

Carr Assembly:                                                                                      93 seats

Net loss of seats:                                                                                   16 seats

 With Northern Territory statehood the representation of the senate can be adjusted to suit the importance of a new state of Northern Australia. No one should decry the Northern Territory their chance to become a State.

 Although Queensland should restore a democratically elected Legislative Council, the new State of Northern Australia would have adequate Senate representation to compensate for the lack of a State Upper House. The Commonwealth would as such retain some influence in Darwin’s affairs.

 The Constitution of the new state of Northern Australia should have appropriate powers as found in other state constitutions. A watered down version will not give a new Premier authority.

 Many people that I have spoken to over the years said that the Territory is ‘too small’ to become a state. The same argument applied to Hawaii and Alaska until 1959 in the United States. Statehood for the Territory will be the catalyst for growth and pride.

 As with Western Australia and Queensland, the new state of Northern Australia can become an economic powerhouse for this nation. It is no accident that these 2 states achieved dramatic growth. How did that happen? The growth in Western Australia is thanks largely to Sir Charles Court and the growth in Queensland is thanks largely to Sir Joh Bjelke Peterson. Territory status for the Northern Territory is holding back not only the Territory, but this nation. A wealthier new state of Northern Australia can go a long way to assist the Indigenous and improve their lively hoods.

 The Alice Springs-Darwin railway took 100 years to go to Palmerston and as with any major city Darwin is deserving of a railway station. Some people argue that the ACT should also be granted statehood and that Queensland should become 3 states. As in the United States the Capital city was given an administrative area that enhanced the status of the city. Washington D.C. was the model for the A.C.T. and the Northern Territory is the Northern gateway to Australia.

 The ACT was established by an Act of Parliament to locate a National Capital. The case in Queensland is also very different. In 1922 the Labor Government abolished the Legislative Council and the reintroduction of an Upper House will avoid the need for Queensland to become 3 separate states.

 The case of the Northern Territory statehood reflects a different need. The state of Northern Australia as our seventh state in the Commonwealth will only enhance our nation and reduce the prospects of this country from becoming a republic. It is time for the Northern Territory to come of age.

 When visitors to Australia arrive in the ‘top end’ they currently come to The Northern Territory. One could be forgiven for asking the Northern Territory of what?

 Following the granting of Statehood visitors arriving in the ‘top end’ would enter the State of Northern Australia. The State of Northern Australia has a far more positive impact than simply The Northern Territory.

 Is there a difference in a name? Without doubt the impact of Statehood will have a profound positive benefit upon ‘top enders’ for decades to come.

Victor P Taffa

When Anna Maria race off to Government House for an early election had she not then maybe the ghost of her descendant William may not be looming with a mutiny from the people of Queensland.

Selling everything that moves to balance the books illustrates one of desperation rather than leadership. Selling off Queensland Rail, the Port of Brisbane, Abbot Coal Terminal, Queensland Motorways and the Queensland forestry plantations sounds more like one of those bargain basement giveaways that are found in a 2 dollar shop than from a responsible and well administered Government.

Perhaps it is time to restore a democratically elected Legislative Council that could hold the Bligh Government to account. With the world wide economic recession biting investors have ‘pulled up stumps’ and stopped investing in such outposts as Queensland.

Why should our coal assets be sold and privatised without considering the economic boom that will occur again? Queensland Railway lines should be electrified and expanded so that the diesel hauled coal trains can be hauled by electric locomotives and the Gold Coast Light Rail line can integrate seamlessly into the heavy railways.

Should Queensland Premier Anna Bligh privatise all of the State’s assets how would this affect Queensland public hospitals if the Rudd Government failed in its attempts to take over the entire health system?

To put this in perspective when the Queensland Legislative Council was abolished on 23 March 1922 the voters had opposed abolition with a NO vote margin of 61% at a 1917 referendum.

Prior to 1922 successive Labor Government’s appointed members to the Legislative Council who would support abolition and in 1934 the Queensland Constitution was amended so that restoration of the Legislative Council required a referendum to restore democracy. During the 1970’s a young activist Anna Bligh was concerned at the actions of the Bjelke-Petersen Government.

Following abolition of the Legislative Council in 1922 the Theodore Labor Government in 1923 introduced a voluntary public hospital scheme that was primarily funded from individual contributions.

The irony of this was that successive Labor Government’s saw the Legislative Council as a chamber of wealth and property and it was these types of people that would voluntarily fund the public hospitals.

By 1946 Queensland introduced a free public hospital system with a hospital board structure and following the introduction of Medibank in 1973 the free health service that Queenslanders’ had come to know and love was now emasculated.

How can a Commonwealth takeover of all public hospitals be healthy when there has been a political party of the same colour administering hospitals for the best part of the last 10 years?

As an example what future role if any would a small hospitals such as Ryde have if the Commonwealth were to take over the running of the hospitals?

Ryde Hospital is in Sydney and was built for returned servicemen. Short term solutions maybe good to balance today’s books but in order to spend tomorrow what revenue base will be available if Queensland has no assets?

Even if State Governments’ are abolished if your assets were sold how would an expanded Federal Government fund anything?

How was it that Queensland used to have free health and the first state to abolish death duties?

As with William, it is like the Bligh leading the Bligh.

Dr Amy McGrath OAM

The Road to a Republic:

The long march to a republic, driven by assorted of all parties in the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament, currently occupies the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee which is due to report in June 2009. The map that that long march will follow was drawn up by a previous inquiry of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee `Inquiry, with six members and thirty one participating’ members whose extensive deliberations from June 2003 resulted in a report on August 11, 2004.

This disappeared, for the time being, into the fog of the late 2004 election and the continued ascendancy of a disinterested government. Its deliberations were entitled the road to a republic and debated the need to move towards the establishment of a republic with an Australian Head of State.

Five of its six members were republicans. The sixth, Senator Nigel Scullion from the CLP in the Northern Territory, was not. Senator Scullion justifiably said the republic should not even be on the national agenda. The issue of whether Australia should become a republic had already been considered in the 1999 referendum. As Professor Flint, President of ACM, agrees with him. `Nothing has changed since 1999 to suggest the question should be reconsidered. It was unnecessary and inappropriate to revisit it now. Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) Internet Site 8.11.2004.

Its majority report proposed an initial national plebiscite on the question of whether Australia should become a republic. If the result was yes, a second plebiscite would be held. At that vote, Australians would choose their preferred model from five options. Once agreed on a model, a group of constitutional experts would refine the details and it would be put for final approval at a constitutional referendum; these three events to be held consecutively at the same time as the federal elections. Given this, the process would take ten years. Notably its conclusions were identical with the policy of the Australian Republican Movement (ARM).

Not all republican constitutional lawyers agreed with this policy. Pro-republican Professor Gregory Craven, Western Australia’s Catholic University Professor of Government and Constitutional Law, condemned the inquiry’s road to a republic as an abuse of democracy for cynical ends when giving evidence to it.

The plebiscite proposals should not be seen as a genuine attempt to engage the Australian people in the republican debate. It is an essentially cynical attempt to extract from the electorate a premature statement of preliminary opinion, on the basis of a deliberately inadequate debate, and to use that statement as a gag with which to stifle republican criticism of the canonised model.

The Inquiry’s road to a republic report on August 11 2004 disappeared, for the time being into the fog after the ALP’s defeat in the late 2004 election and the continued ascendancy of a disinterested government. However the Senate’s assorted republicans, chiefly aligned with the ALP, sprang to life again when the Rudd Government came into office on November 24, 2007 and firmly placed it back on the agenda.

On November 11, 2008, Senator Brown introduced a private Bill to request a Plebiscite “to give the Australian people the opportunity to vote on whether Australia should be a republic by asking them `a simple question `do you support Australia becoming a republic?’ It requires a simple yes or no response. The question determines if Australians want an Australian as Head of State? It does not attempt to determine what model should be adopted, what powers the head of state should hold or other operational or governance issues.

Senator Brown’s Bill was passed by the Senate with the support of assorted republican Senators of the Green, ALP and Democratic Parties and a sprinkle of Liberal Party Senators. It was referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee on November 13. This Senate Committee has invited contributions up to February 6, and will report in June 2009.

The 2004 Committee proposals must surely have had the approval of the Rudd government despite serious condemnation from high profile fellow republicans of the plebiscite proposals, when first approved by the 2004 Committee, that plebiscites were mere push-polls that solved no problems, changed nothing and in Professor George Williams words `no constitutional significance whatsoever.’ These republicans included at the time Malcolm Turnbull, former leader of the ARM movement, the Hon. Peter Costello, the Hon. Tim Fischer, the Hon. Justice McGarvie, journalist Paul Kelly and constitutional lawyer, Professor Greg Craven.

The eminent jurist, the Hon. Justice Richard McGarvie, a staunch Labor man, warned:

A plebiscite, which simply asked people whether Australia should become a republic, without providing any of the details necessary for properly considering such an important question would, if approved, produces a process of drift, leaving the country, without leadership and postponed resolution for a long time.

Liberal Party Senator Nick Minchin, always a man of courageous conviction, sounded a far more grave warning on the plan for the two preliminary plebiscites of `the road to a republic’. No man was more qualified to do this than he. He was the Howard government organiser of both the 1997 Constitutional Convention and the 1999 referendum on the model by that Convention. He accused the movers and shakers of this inquiry of failing to accept the judgement of the people in the 1999 referendum.

Labor is committed to a two-stage process, which first involves destroying the legitimacy of our Constitutional Monarchy. The chosen vehicle for this is the device of national plebiscites, which has as its object the undermining of our constitutional monarchy to the point where it is hoped that it will simply collapse under the attacks. The plebiscites are a gigantic and irresponsibly expensive distraction designed to produce a vote of No Confidence in our current Constitutional arrangements.

Senator Minchin’s warning that Labor was bent on `destroying the legitimacy of our Constitutional Monarchy’, and to do this by producing `a vote of No Confidence in our current Constitution arrangements’ should be heard loud and clear for its true meaning that there is a Machiavellian conspiracy to destroy the Constitution. Not to make neither cosmetic changes nor even minor amendments but to destroy it altogether.

There can be no other road to a republic for the Crown is the Constitution as Ann Twomey says in her book, The Chameleon Crown: The Westminster system requires the Crown, indeed the Crown is its heart. If the Crown collapses so does the indissoluble union of the States within a federation.

Republican constitutional lawyer, Professor Greg Craven, also accused the republican movers and shakers of the plebiscites of Machiavellian tactics:

Their plan for a festival of republican plebiscites combines the buoyancy of the titanic with the transparency of a rigged horse race (Australian Financial Review 27.7.2004)

Professor Craven elaborated on the kind of trickery that could occur:

The tendency will be to advantage shallow, flawed proposals (such as direct presidential election)with much to shout about and more to hide … By eliciting from the population a premature answer based upon a shallow discussion of the relevant issues, they can be employed to lock-in a particular policy option (The Australian Parliamentary Group, ‘Referenda Plebiscites and Sundry Parliamentary Impedimenta).’

Distinguished lawyer, Professor David Flint, echoed Professor Craven’s accusation:

It is simply first and foremost an underhand device to undermine respect for our present constitutional arrangements. The republicans’ desperate hope then is that undermining once achieved, Australians will eventually submit to a referendum proposal for a republic, even though they might not care for the particular model proposed (Paper Samuel Griffith Society).

The proposal that the vote on this fundamental question is to be by simple majority is manipulative and deliberate. It would preclude anyone raising an argument on the basis of comparing the merits of any of the proposed forms of republic with those of the present Constitution. The present Constitution is ruled out of any subsequent choice given in the second plebiscite. This tactic was tried unsuccessfully in the early stages of the 1999 Constitutional Convention. This should not be forgotten.

In all this dialogue for and against this road to a republic which the Rudd government has re-activated by hiding behind the least democratically elected man in the Commonwealth Parliament – Senator Brown – by 25,000 votes in Tasmania, one argument is seldom heard. The whole road to a republic circus via plebiscites and non-parliamentary convention is in profound contempt of s.128 which means what it says:

This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:-
The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both houses, the proposed law shall be submitted to each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

This s.128 was the final decision of the Founding Fathers, as to the best means to defend their indissoluble union against any revolutionary change, after 10 years of debate. Theirs were the finest lawyers in the country from the six independent sovereign monarchical States joining in the indissoluble union of our unique federation. Most of them were also experienced politicians.

Senator Brown and the Rudd Government know that there are no problems with the existing Constitution, and therefore they have no specific clauses to put to both Houses of Parliament, as required by s.128, the one and only legal means of changing the Constitution. Nor would they have any legal case that would survive public debate in both Houses.

Why therefore they deliberately chose to act in contempt of s. 128? Dr Frank McGrath, author of The Framers of the Constitution exposes their Machiavellian intent:

The central reason for this change is to prepare the ground for the final Constitutional referendum under s.128 in order that any argument in favour of the retention of the present Constitution can be excluded from consideration, so that the change to a republic will have an unhindered passage. This attempt to exclude the existing Constitution from consideration can be seen at every turn of the procedure recommended by the Senate Committee (Paper on Plebiscites and Constitutional Change.)

A recommendation 24 sought alteration of the Referendum Act to ensure that partisan arguments for the YES and NO cases, as in the 1999 referendum no longer be allowed in favour of independent information by the Parliament’s education committee.

So what do these republicans really want that they have resorted to a Machiavellian conspiracy to beguile the public with a simple question put by a simple vote. Not a hint that the very suggestion is the first shot in a campaign that is as profound in its purpose as the tea-chests thrown into Boston Harbour – particularly as that first question is intended to be a propaganda tool backed by an expensive parliament authorised `education’ campaign.

What the question really intends is to banish all supporters of constitutional monarchy in the first round of the plebiscite. There will be no yes/no case pamphlet delivered to all electors.

The Joint Standing Committee on Constitutional Education and Awareness to be set up in the words of Dr Frank McGrath, author of The Framers of the Constitution and their Intentions:

It is clearly for the purpose of advancing the whole program to establish a republic. It is not to discuss arguments for and against a republic, or for the purpose of understanding how the present Constitution works, but to guide and advance the electorate towards advancement of the alleged movement towards a republic.

The danger is that it will be stacked as the 20/20 committee was with ninety nine republicans and one monarchist.

What is not well understood is that the models to be included in the second plebiscite are similar to the five models already put forward by the ARM in 2004. So why is the first plebiscite necessary at all.

As in any Machiavellian conspiracy the very audacity conceals the fanaticism that lies behind an apparently innocent mask and makes it possible to succeed with an unsuspecting public.

The road to a republic is a plan which has offered no reason for change other than a question `do you support Australia becoming a republic? This is the plan for revolution not evolution. This has as much validity as the original catchcry of the French revolution of liberty, equality and fraternity. But it does have a whiff of a Promised Land that exists beyond change into a republic. In fact the French slogan had more validity. But the same will happen here as in France long ago, ad later in Brazil, there will be unintended consequences. Divisions, power struggles, emergence of dictators.

As the distinguished Belgian Constitutional lawyer, Professor Gabriel Moens, warned:

There is no deficiency in the constitutional system of Australia that a change to a republic could possibly remedy. Rather, a change to a republic would be excessively complex, if not traumatic for the nation. Although it offers no advantages over a constitutional monarchy, any change to a republic would certainly involve the greatest leap into political, legal and constitutional darkness that this country had ever experienced. (The Australian Constitutional Defender No 9 2008).

Removal of the Crown will destroy the independent sovereignty of the States. All six states have always been sovereign states, existing independently as constitutional monarchies under the Crown and became more so after passage of the 1986 Australia Acts. The founding fathers devised the complex provision of s,128 of the Constitution specifically to ensure that one and only one procedure would be followed for any change and to deter any attempt to bring it about by a back door – particular by those with centralising ambitions based on subordination, even destruction, of the power of the States.

The independent sovereignty of the States has already been under attacks. It is not common knowledge that Prime Minister Whitlam advanced a proposal with the British government that all communications between the States and the Queen and the British government should be made through the Governor General. Although this had serious implications with the States, according to Ann Twomey:

He did not consult the States at all on his proposals … the Premiers wrote to Whitlam mid 1973 to defend their sovereignty and to try and elicit some measure of consultation or information but to no avail (p.97 The N.S.W. Constitution).

Similar efforts were subsequently made.

The current road to a republic is ultra vires in respect of s.128 of the Constitution. It is a Machiavellian plan to remove monarchists from the debate in the first round, to destroy the constitution and the independent existence of the states as sovereign monarchies in the second and third rounds. It would open the flood gates to such power struggles between States, president and parliament, as have broken out in almost all constitutional monarchies that became republics during the 20th century with many of them involved in civil war backed by outside powers like new imperial countries like Russia and China.

“Ebay is no way to run New South Wales”

Victor P Taffa

Hunter residents’ filled Newcastle Leagues Club auditorium on Wednesday October 8 2009 and key speakers called upon the Rees Government to start listening or face the consequences at the 2011 State election. Among the assembled were local Government and State Government representatives including Greg Piper Lake Macquarie MP, Matthew Morris Charlestown MP and Sonia Hornery Wallsend MP.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Greens Cessnock City Councillor James Ryan opened proceedings and welcomed 7 speakers from the community to address the gathering about key Hunter Valley concerns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brad O’Dell, Islington Residents Action Group is incensed at the apparent inaction by authorities on street prostitution in Islington. “Prostitutes are operating in Islington and why is an illegal activity operating?” Brad demanded to know. “It is a disgraceful situation” Brad added.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joan Dawson, Lower Hunter Save Our Rail says that “everyone knows Newcastle needs to be fixed and Save Our Rail is not opposed to development.” Joan also added “there are more pressing needs than spending $650 million to pull out rail.” Joan believes that “Infrastructure is already there, it needs enhancing and it is better to put lifts in at Waratah, Victoria Street and Cardiff railway stations and build the Glendale Interchange.” Joan went onto say “Wickham is not convenient for a bus interchange.” Furthermore Joan accepts “that there are social, environmental and looming peak oil concerns” and demands to keep the rail and “Save Our Rail is not here to attack the State Government but lobby our politicians.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Louise Howell, Wallsend Aged Care Facility calls for the Specialist Wallsend Aged Care Facility to be saved from Privatisation. “It has 103 beds of which there are 20 people with varying disabilities such as dementia that takes people some other facilities “don’t want.” Louise went onto say that residents at Wallsend currently do not pay accommodation bonds and as they move on or pass away the beds will become not for profit organisation beds. In 1988 the Greiner Government took away Wallsend Public Hospital following a march of 20,000 residents and a picket line that lasted 18 months. An agreement was signed that ensured that a nursing home would remain in public hands. This agreement has been forgotten. Wallsend is unique, belongs to the community and residents under the Aged Care Act 1997 have human rights that are not being adhered to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carol Pasemow, No Tillegra Dam Group is calling for the Tillegra Dam to be stopped and made reference to the following: 450 megalitre dam will inundate the Williams River, threatens the future of Dungog and the dam will cover 21 km of River and 2,000km of prime agricultural land. Water consumption for 2007/08 was recorded as the lowest in 40 years for the Hunter Valley. The Tillegra Dam is costed at $477 million and rising to be funded by water levy increases. While there is a 1:250 year chance by 2025 for the Hunter to have drought restrictions. Originally the dam was promoted to ensure water supplies for the Central Coast and the dam will now ensure water supplies for the Hunter that has 98% water capacity as nearby Chichester Dam supplies 38% of Lower Hunter water. Carol along with many people believed that the Tillegra Dam was announced “as a diversion” from the scandal surrounding then Swansea MP Milton Orkopoulos. “Tillegra Dam is a convenient cash cow for the State Government.” and Carol keeps asking as to why water recycling and rainwater harvesting cannot occur rather than a dam that no one wants and the community does not need. Carol and her family “stands to lose everything” if the Tillegra Dam goes ahead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Les Macalister, Hunter Power worker who opposes electricity privatisation has “worked in the industry for 30 years and believes that operations are as lean as they can be.” Les went onto say: “The Government thought that it could make money out of the power stations or retail arms and this Government has no mandate for privatisation which won’t even go to Parliament.” “If the industry goes private business, consumers and people will suffer, plan A and B failed now plan C is a trade model.” “We have support from Liberals, Nationals, Greens and all other parties.” Les concluded with “Ebay is no way to run New South Wales.”

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Renee Lemarceny, NO to Prison privatisation has been through a vigorous campaign against the Government is not relaxing in spite of assurances that prison privatisation was not going to proceed. “We marched the streets and went to Parliament.” Furthermore Renee also said: Family ties to Cessnock go back many generations in Corrective Services. The options were redundancy, transfer or a new career with no ideas on working conditions for workers. Overtime was reportedly costing the Department too much money but the Government would not employ more correctional officers as the Government ripped out 120 prisoners without their personal belongings or knowledge. The Government has done a back flip on privatisation but the Jail is only half full. Parklea has been handed over to private contractors even though privatising important public services does not work. Renee concluded with “the Government is not being honest.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keynote Speaker Dr. Richard Denniss is Executive Director of think tank, The Australia Institute also lectured in Economics at the University of Newcastle, originally hails from Dora Creek. In his address Dr. Denniss “did think that when the Government held a community cabinet meeting that it would result in a united community.” Dr. Denniss went onto make mention: “You can achieve far more collectively, that there is good policy and good politics.” “In the last 3 years Australia’s G.D.P has grown by $83 billion and there is no money for health, education or transport.” Dr. Denniss told his captivated audience that “people should ask simple questions and demand simple answers and you have to hold people to account and by consulting, which means consulting before a decision is made.” “Investing in transport and health services that you want while Governments do not want to invest in assets but rather sell them. If you want to get rich, you need to invest.” “The Hunter community wants investment in assets at the same time as Governments are selling them and now the Government wants to spend $477 million and then looks you in the eye and says that it has no more money for your other problems, so if there’re short of cash don’t build the dam.” Dr. Denniss concluded by mentioning that the State Government spends $62 Billion annually.

 

 

 Following the meeting comments were made by the State Members of Parliament in attendance. All 3 Members of Parliament announced their opposition to Electricity Privatisation.

Greg Piper MP is opposed to the Transport Administration Amendment (Rail Trails) Bill 2009 and said that “This piece of legislation is evil and represents a Government out of touch, this Bill is not about selling assets per se but the vision that politicians and bureaucrats had.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew Morris MP also discussed the Rail Trails bill and was “very concerned about the bill although the principle of the bill is fine but gives the Minister too much power.” Matthew Morris added “Caucus supports the bill and I will monitor the implementation of the bill.” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sonia Hornery MP was more forthright on other key issues. “The State Government talks about disability access being a priority at stations and we should have looked at lifts for Cardiff (station) a long time ago.” Sonia Hornery also mentioned that the Glendale interchange should have been built 10 years ago following original correspondence received with my office.” When asked about the Rail Trails bill “My concern about the bill is about the line at Newcastle and the need to reintroduce train tracks to Northern New South Wales. The devil is always in the detail.” Sonia Hornery added. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The meeting concluded triumphantly and the public resolved to continue to take the fight up to the Government on these issues.