The Incredible, Fast Disappearing Rights of Australians By James Reed

     It is not too difficult to come up with a list of the many rights which past Australians enjoyed, but which have been taken away from us by the political class to serve their New World Order masters. Everyone has their personal  list, but at the top must be the destruction of the Federal system by the High Court of Australia, and the centralisation of power in Canberra. This drive for centralism began immediately with the High Court’s opening, and has continued to the present day, making the states completely dependent upon Canberra. Thus, Feds were easily able to force all states into the 1996 gun grab by using the financial threat. However, the Founding Fathers never intended for the states to be politically gutted in this way. As one of the leading law papers has said about this:

“Our contention in this paper will be that Australia’s High Court, in deciding federal distribution of powers cases over the last century, culminating in the recent Work Choices case, has created an end product that looks not unlike one of Herbert’s misleading cases, although of course the High Court’s intentions have been something other than simply the reader’s amusement. Such a contention, we readily acknowledge, will come as no surprise to those familiar with the constitutional jurisprudence of the superior courts of other countries. The Australian High Court has been by no means unique in its ability, over time, to interpret the Constitution in a manner widely at variance with the intentions and expectations of its founders.

However, the techniques by which the High Court of Australia has done this are perhaps unique, for they have rested upon a rather unlikely foundation: a certain kind of textual formalism, the professed motivating reason for which has been the idea that by following this method the judges will avoid imposing their own subjective and idiosyncratic views upon the authoritative text of the Constitution. The ironic result — to adopt Herbert’s terminology — has been a most uncommon body of constitutional law, generated by a most uncommon court, using what appear to be the most orthodox techniques of common law reasoning, applied to the text of the Constitution.

Before we attempt to support this contention, let us recall some of the outcomes produced in Herbert’s Uncommon Law cases. In Dahlia Ltd v Yvonne (pp 314–319) a decision of the House of Lords is argued to be in the nature of an act of God, something no reasonable man could assess or predict in advance. In Fardell v Potts (pp 1–6) the notion of a reasonable man is held not to encompass or subsume that of a reasonable woman. In Rex v Puddle (pp 159–163) a Collector of Taxes is held to be a blackmailer. In HM Customs and Excise v Bathbourne Literary Society (pp 408–413) a lecturer who makes people laugh, and so is entertaining as well as informative, is held (against expectations) not to be subject to a heavy tax and not to be doing something illegal.

In Haddock v Mogul Hotels, Ltd (pp 269–274) it is held that every waiter must know by heart the whole text of the Licensing Acts before being permitted, lawfully, to remove a patron’s alcoholic beverage after closing time. In Haddock v Thwale (pp 124–129) motor cars are held to be subject to the same treatment, at law, as wild beasts (and in this case ordered to be put down). And so on, and so on. Each time the conclusion reached looks laughably far-fetched, or at minimum implausible, when viewed from the initial vantage of the rules (statutory or case law ones) used to determine the outcome. The self-evident problem with each case — the point which enables Herbert to demonstrate the absurdity of the result — is that the enactors of those rules (or the earlier judges creating them in a previous case) would never have envisaged that they would be used or interpreted in this way.

It is precisely this claim that we will make in relation to the Australian Constitution and how it has been interpreted by the High Court in federalism cases since 1920. None of the Constitution’s framers would ever have imagined, back in the 1890s or in 1901, that a century or so later the Australian States would be as emasculated as they are today: that they would be so dependent upon the Commonwealth for their governmental finances; and that their policy-making capacities would be so contingent upon political decisions taken by the Federal Government.

More specifically, none of the framers would have anticipated that the ‘corporations’ power (s 51(xx)) would be held to allow the Commonwealth to take over the field of industrial relations;  that the ‘external affairs’ power (s 51(xxix)) would be deemed to enable the Commonwealth to enact far-reaching environmental, human rights and industrial relations laws; or that the States could be cajoled into abjuring income tax powers, not least because four federal statutes — passed at the same time (during the Second World War) and consecutively numbered — were assessed or judged individually (and, of course, held to be valid) and not as part of a package. And this is merely to highlight some of the better known ways in which the competencies of the Commonwealth have waxed while those of the States have waned.

Nothing in the language of the Australian Constitution, or its structure, or the process that was used to adopt it, or the basis upon which its approval by the voters was promoted, or the likely original understandings of most of those voters, or anything else at the time would have suggested that the States would become the enfeebled, emasculated creatures they have become. Put slightly differently, no one, or almost no one, would have guessed or predicted that virtually all of the important division of powers cases would eventually go the Commonwealth’s way — or at least there would have been no grounds at the time for thinking that Australia’s political centre would do so much better at the hands of the judiciary than would be the case in Canada, Germany or even the United States.” l

     We have covered each week the contemporary drive to eliminate the rights of Australians. The TPP and other globalist economic policies will destroy traditional Australians by the backdoor, taking away the economic lifeblood of the nation, stripping way jobs, and allowing open border immigration. Of course, to keep the natives in line, the elites bought in racial and religious vilification laws, so people complaining about their dispossession can be silenced by the iron fist of the law.  In summary, the modern Australian state seeks to destroy everything good and worthwhile that traditional pre-World War II Australia created. It is really the anti-state and the anti-Australian institution.

     Name any worthwhile right, such as freedom of speech and due process, and it is under attack. There have been no positive developments where new laws have created protections for us; every new law is a taking-away of something important. For example, the new firearms regulations, while looking as if being concerned with “safety,” are really using safety requirements to put gun owners under a further squeeze, by requiring new safes, CCTV and security arrangements, far out of proportion to the necessity of protecting one’s guns. It was thus never about safety at all, that was just the surface smoke screen for a quiet agenda of gun grabbing. Hence, the modern state is not “our” friend, but the problem to be overcome, with varying responses being given to this issue:,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=detail



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Thursday, 18 July 2024

Captcha Image