LETTER TO MEMBERS-NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2017
In the not too distant past there was a brilliant man. In this day and age we would call him a nerd but of course, this was before computers, the Internet, faxes and all the paraphernalia of the modern age. This man linked himself to a radical movement and made himself indispensable.
When he became involved most members of the movement were somewhat weird with even weirder ideas. He remoulded the organisation by looking at what the people wanted and then catered to their needs. In time his movement grew in popularity until it had hundreds of thousands of members. His talent was communications and his purpose was to provide lies and misinformation, continually repeating them one after the other. As he had said “...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious.”
The movement then put forward candidates for state and federal parliaments and were successful to the extent of having a few elected, but the bulk of the people were mistrustful. The man had said “we enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its affair. We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.”
However, there was an international financial crisis which the established political groups could not effectively tackle and many people cast their votes for this movement, electing a number to the parliament. The brilliant propagandist had said “Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred” and their hatred was directed towards the multinational wealthy and the elite, much as we see the socialist left doing today despite the fact that it is the socialists who are now the wealthy and it is they who occupy top paying government positions.
In the interim period the radicals amongst the movement, with the connivance and tacit approval of the leadership, would violently browbeat any opposition to them. Eventually the leader of the movement became the head of the government. As this man and his colleagues thought, “It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.” Presumably such a sentiment applied only if they were the State.
The brilliant man was Joseph Goebbels, the leader was Adolf Hitler and the movement was, of course, the Nazi Party.
In 2017 we see a number of causes adopted by the socialist left which now include Marxist- Fabians, the Socialist Alliance, the Greens, radical students and others. They turn up and protest, often violently. So much so that conservatives are generally too scared to voice their own opinions. Indeed, there are so many similarities between the rise of totalitarian regimes of the 20th century and what is happening today.
Of course, the cause that is of great concern to us is the move towards a republic. The campaign for constitutional change is based on incorrect slogans with much misinformation. We hear about the need for ‘an Australian as head of state’ when we already have one in the Australian Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, who becomes effective head of state upon appointment by the sovereign head of state, the Queen.
We are told, however, that we should not be ruled by a little old lady living in a castle on the other side of the world when the fact is, the Queen does not rule but reigns and then only subject to both the Australian constitution and the will of the Australian people. However, did not Goebbels himself say “The truth is the greatest enemy of the State” and “if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”?
We have seen in the survey in regard to same-sex marriage how the government was able to arrange this without reference to the parliament; how they were able to determine the question to be asked and the time period of the survey. This has established a precedent for Shorten to follow, should he be our next prime minister. Whilst a plebiscite would require debate in the parliament a survey will not. This is very serious and damaging to our cause.
Also very serious is the fact that some 700 corporations have thrown their weight behind the Yes case pouring millions of dollars into their coffers. We know about the support Joyce and Packer have given to the republicans. How many more of these corporations will do likewise? Whilst redefining marriage is not a constitutional matter and therefore not one for consideration by the Australian Monarchist League, we view what is happening with great interest because we fear similar phenomena during a republic debate.
We have also seen opposition leader Shorten appoint a shadow minister for an Australian head of state, in other words ‘a republic’. Matt Thistlethwaite MP is actually a spokesperson for a republic because you really can’t have a shadow minister where there is no government minister to follow. Thistlethwaite will be able to travel the country on your taxpayer monies running down our existing constitutional arrangements and the Queen (to whom both he and Shorten have pledged allegiance) telling people they must change to a republic!
USING SOCIAL MEDIA AS OUR CAMPAIGN TOOL
What with the millions pouring into the ARM coffers and the now confirmed support of the Labor Party and the federal opposition, they can mount a campaign that will completely overrun us if we allow them to. Fortunately, we have a well talented team of youthful volunteers prepared to put their shoulder to the wheel but it is a David against Goliath situation. The difference is that instead of using a slingshot, we have only social media as our campaign tool.
At the conference I mentioned that we cannot afford to campaign in the traditional style as we did in 1999. In fact, I had had to advance the bulk of my personal savings to fund our campaign. Indeed, so costly was advertising and direct mail that I am still slowly paying off the remaining balance from my repleted funds.
Therefore, we have decided that our resources must be dedicated to campaigning via social media and we are developing our Facebook and Twitter platforms in particular. We are producing videos to give short sharp messages and these are already broadcasting on our Facebook and Twitter pages. We are willing to learn from all, even that abomination Joseph Goebbels, who said “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”
We recently held a competition for a new logo and Lachlan Smith from the Barossa in South Australia submitted an excellent logo which we are now using and which now heads our social media pages and, as you will see, the re-branding of this newsletter.
Lachlan came up to our conference on Saturday, November 4 and unveiled the logo explaining how he had developed the concept. His comments, together with other speakers, have been included in this issue of our newsletter.
We were fortunate to have the Hon. Tony Abbott MP speaking to us at the conference. He had arrived from the USA that morning on what was a very special day for him, his 60th birthday. It is a sign of his support for our cause that he gave of his valuable time on what would obviously have been a terribly busy day for him to attend our conference and spend time mixing with the 80 odd delegates who attended from around the country.
Having re-branded our communications, we are now looking at a theme tune to indicate how the League is standing up for the Australian way of life. Details of a competition calling for entries can be found in this newsletter.
We hope to be able to soon hold a fundraising dinner with a target of $50,000 to help us meet the enhanced republican/Labor/Greens/socialist left campaign.
CITIZENSHIP
As more and more politicians are caught up in what is called the citizenship saga, there are calls to amend section 44 of the Australian constitution to make it easier for politicians who have dual nationality to sit in the parliament.
The reason why the constitution requires a member of the Federal parliament to be solely Australian is to ensure that their decisions are not influenced by an allegiance to a foreign power. It is also important to realise that each parliamentarian must be allegiant to the Queen, who is the head of the parliament. A dual national may not be able to be so allegiant.
The section states:
Any person who-
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights & privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power:
Of course, when the constitution was drafted a ‘foreign power’ was anything other than British because all Australians were at that time British subjects.
In 1948 governments of the Commonwealth realms enacted their own ‘Nationality and Citizenship Acts’ each creating separate citizenships. Under the Australian Citizenship Act persons born in Australia became both Australian citizens and British subjects.
In fact, when Britain was enacting its own ‘Nationality and Citizenship Act’, our greatest Australian statesman, Sir Robert Menzies, spoke whilst in the UK warning that the Act would, by the “very unnecessary Act of separation performed by British Parliaments and States bring new hope to those who would destroy us and new confusions in the minds of our friends.” At the same time, he also made a very appropriate comment most pertinent to the situation in which we find ourselves today. He said “We cannot hack away at the foundations and then express surprise when someday the house falls.”
This situation was redefined in 1982 by the then Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Harry Gibbs, who ruled that “the allegiance which Australians owe to Her Majesty is owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia”. The Australian Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1984 declared that Australian law would no longer regard Australians as British subjects and in 1988, following the passage of the Australia Acts of 1986 which severed remaining constitutional links between the United Kingdom and Australia and the Australian States, the High Court ruled that anyone who was not an Australian citizen, whether or not a subject of the Monarch of the United Kingdom, was an alien (Nolan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1988]). In 1999, the High Court, in the case of Sue v Hill declared that Britain was a foreign power.
So, as you can see it is not the constitution that is obsolete – it has kept up with the times - but rather it is the redefinition of Australia’s relationship with Britain and the other Commonwealth Realms which has led us to the situation in which we find ourselves in today.
For years there have been members of the parliament who have been dual nationals. For years people have been raising questions about this but all political parties have swept the issue under the carpet. It should not be the constitution that is changed but rather the arrogance of many of our politicians who seem to think they are above the constitution.
Any person standing for the parliament who was born overseas or who has a parent born overseas must show due diligence and check their citizenship status even if, in the case of the latter, they were born in Australia. This now includes those already in the parliament. At the same time I would mention that the authorities have been negligent in not providing clear guidelines in this regard.
The prime minister has now somewhat belatedly called upon members of parliament to declare their situation of birth and the status of their parents. Admittedly, it is difficult when countries change their own citizenship laws which reflect upon the citizenship of Australian citizens. Difficult but not impossible to determine. Of course, the prime minister’s requirement is dependent not only upon the integrity but also the awareness of individual members.
When it was found that Barnaby Joyce was also a New Zealand citizen, because his father was born in New Zealand, I wrote to him urging him to step aside even for the sake of his own integrity but he didn’t even acknowledge my letter. We now have the situation of ministers remaining in office and making decisions and voting upon legislation when they should have known they were not validly elected in the first place and had no right to be there.
That comment may seem harsh but it is also right because we are talking about the governance of this country. Of course Barnaby is now saying the constitution should be changed rather than he be rapped over the knuckles for not checking his own citizenship and as a result costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars for a by-election.
It must be said that this government is in chaos and it seems that only an election can resolve the situation. Of course, from our point of view an early election may bring on a Shorten government which would be disastrous for us because Bill Shorten will bring on a series of republican plebiscites or surveys and a referendum.
I have written formally to the Governor-General, the representative of the Queen in this country, to point out that he has a responsibility to ensure that the parliament is working effectively and as such it is up to him to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that we have the parliament that the constitution requires and not one riddled with people who were not validly elected. Relying upon the integrity of politicians, many of whom have none, is not good enough.
I know that I go on about allegiance, but this also ties in with what is happening. The constitution requires all members of parliament to swear or affirm to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law” but so many take the oath because they have to do not because they have any intention of abiding by it.
In making the oath the member binds himself or herself to be loyal. It is like signing a contract and legally doesn’t matter in the least whether the swearer means it at the time. Saying in the oath that he will do something that he never intends to do reflects poorly on his character but affects neither the binding nature of the oath nor his eligibility to sit. Of course, if the Senator makes it obvious at the time of making the oath that he did not consider the words he was about to say to be binding it could be argued that he had not actually taken the oath, and so cannot sit – i.e. he or she would still be a senator, but could not participate in the proceedings of the Senate until he or she made the oath properly. The philosophy of our English system is that oaths are principally morally binding. An oath-breaker’s chief accountability is to God and his conscience. The problem is that so many do not believe in a God and most seem to have no conscience.
COOPERATION WITH ACM
The national conference passed a motion that the Australian Monarchist League work to establish a closer cooperation with Australians for Constitutional Monarchy and other pro-monarchist organisations. This is something that we have been pushing for some time. We are not talking about amalgamation because we are two differently structured organisations and do have differing emphasis on certain matters. However, it is important that all those who support the Crown join the fight actively challenging the lies and misinformation of Peter FitzSimons, Bill Shorten and their legion of republicans. As Goebbels had said “The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed” and it is up to us in a combined effort to put forward the true facts of our constitutional arrangements.
It is proposed that three delegates from each organisation meet on a regular basis. Both the Hon. Santo Santoro and the Hon. Tony Abbott MP are involved in promoting such cooperation.
PRINCE CHARLES
Republicans will be concentrating their efforts on attacking the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. It is up to us to promote Prince Charles as a suitable future monarch and to highlight the enormous time he spends in promoting charities and in doing good works.
I appreciate that he makes comments from time to time that do jar on a number of people and, of course, the messy divorce and problems associated with his previous marriage have not endeared him to some people. However, our constitution whilst based on the Crown stands independent of the personality of the monarch. We should appreciate that the monarch is a part of our constitution, not our constitution a part of the monarchy.
The fact is, the Prince of Wales will, in time, become King and our head of state. Undoubtedly the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will become the Prince and Princess of Wales. For those monarchists who don’t like Prince Charles and are thinking of voting against the monarchy when he becomes king, never forget, you are denying the throne to Prince William, Princess Diana’s son. There is also a choice, either we have Charles as King or someone like Malcolm Turnbull or Peter FitzSimons as president. King Charles (or King George if he decides to take that name) will, by convention, not interfere in the governance of this nation. Can we say the same about a president, particularly one elected by the people with his or her own mandate?
CHRISTMAS
The Australian Monarchist League is not one for political correctness, which actually has nothing to do with being correct but everything to do with falling into line with the socialist activist doctrine. Therefore without reservation may I wish one all a very Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year.
We also send felicitations to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh on the occasion of their Platinum Wedding Anniversary which falls on the 20th of this month.
2018 will undoubtedly be a very busy year for the Australian Monarchist League as we face the overwhelming combined force of republicans and Labor. However, we do appreciate the support that you have given to us, some over many years, and thank you for making our organisation the most active monarchists group in the country.
END