Why a new preamble?

If we adopt what is distractingly referred to as the "Constitution" at the November referendum - we will have a Constitution that does not have a preamble. (It has no longer has a fundamental base).

This situation arises because what we refer to as our constitution is just one section of a British Act of Parliament. The preamble of that Act is the statement of intention and principles at the beginning of the Act. The section identified as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution is Section 9 of this British Act. Section 9 has not a separate lead statement, - a separate Preamble.

The government plan is to take section 9 of this British Act to Constitute Australia and breathe fresh life into it via a referendum, making it, as it was in the past, a document with legal force, as the Commonwealth Constitution. Detaching Section 9, to stand on its own, as the Constitution without a Preamble brings about a need to introduce a Preamble to this section, and so the need to have one approved at referendum becomes essential.

A major problem with what is proposed is that the people do not understand what is going on and that there has been no effort by government to advise the people on the underlying agenda.

To add to the dilemma, the government has announced that the Preamble they intend putting to referendum will have no effect on law making or on High Court decisions and as a result we should not be concerned too much about the Preamble wording. It is essential to note that we are not being asked to adopt the very fine Preamble at the beginning of the British Act, which would be totally appropriate as it was originally intended to be the preamble to our Constitution.

The outcome of such a referendum will be that the electors have fallen into well-disguised trap. As a result we, the electors, will have inadvertently chosen one only of the six documents that make up our original Constitution, stuck in a Preamble that provides no intention, no aspirations, no direction, no principles on which to base our nation or any future constitutional determinations. The Australian electors will have inadvertently given this unworkable hotch-potch their approval.

The reason government is going down this path is that, it grants unlimited power to government, where not even the founding principles are clear. In fact they are nonexistent.

It is terribly important, essential, that we consider the fact that this one single document, one of a set making up the rules (law) for government of Australia under a Monarch, is a document that was never intended to be used on its own. In isolation from the other documents of the set it offers no protection whatsoever to the people and it renders the people powerless. For instance the single document provides for a Governor-General, but the Governor-General's duties were defined in a Letters Patent from Queen Victoria. This Letters Patent is the key that unlocks the constitution and allows it to function as it was designed and entrenches the much needed checks and balances. This 1900 Letters Patent details the essential divisions of power.

Are we going to adopt an incomplete and non-functional document, a sham, as our constitution? Are we going to adopt a document that grants unlimited, dictatorial power to government?

Are we going to adopt a document that makes no reference to the fundamental rights of the people or to the foundation of our justice system - no reference to our right to life, liberty and property? A document where the long trusted and essential divisions of power are missing? A document bare of our aspirations as a nation, bare of principles, bare of a philosophy?

There is an Alternative called Alternative Three, check it out.

Alternative Three, PO Box 270, St Marys, NSW 2760 Ph; 02-9623-6177 Fax: 02-9826-1670. E-mail: succeed@bigpond.com

  Copyright © 1997  United People Power  All rights reserved.

succeed@bigpond.com

Revised: April 21, 2003.