A People's Constitution

It is an interesting question - "Why does Australia need a new and honest Constitution?"

There are several reasons, but probably the most important one is that the 1900 British Act we still use today as our Constitution is a lie in terms of the way we are governed.

I know that sounds absurd, but it’s actually true.

The system of Government used in Australia is what is known as the Westminster system. It is basically a copy of the system used in the UK.

However, that is not the system that is spelled out in the British Act of 1900. It is a fact that the Westminster system doesn't get a mention anywhere in the document, nor do political parties for that matter.

Just as importantly, neither is the position of a Prime Minister created, let alone any powers or authority that might go with that position.

The way we are governed in Australia today, and in fact, since 1901, is fundamentally unconstitutional. It is a system of Government that has been adopted in complete disregard of what the Constitution says.

Let's face it - the Constitution of a nation is also the Primary Law of that nation, so why should the politicians, the Judges, the academics, and the whole of the legal system be allowed to ignore it?

Why, indeed?

Shouldn't the Primary Law of Australia clearly say what sort of Government the people wanted to have?

Shouldn't the Primary Law of Australia say what sort of powers, privileges and immunities the people are prepared to allow their elected representatives?

Shouldn’t the Primary Law say what sort of nation we want; a nation whose basic nature is a people’s democracy? The British Act doesn’t do that.

Shouldn't the Primary Law of the Australia say that the Prime Minister is the senior Government official of the nation and no public servant should be paid more than the Prime Minister?

These are just a very few of the questions that are raised when anyone gets to read the British Act as it is actually written.

But - WHY are all these questions raised, and WHY aren't there any answers to any of them?

Anyone who has an honest interest in the history of the British Act would surely find the answer to these fundamentally important questions, simply by reading the British Act as it is actually written, and not as it is deliberately, and dihonestly, applied.

The British Act, which includes Part 9 titled, “The Constitution”, is a document put together between the British Government and 50 colonial politicians and lawyers, many of whom were both. Despite what everyone has been led to believe, the express purpose of the Act is to maintain the colonial status quo as it existed in the 19th century. That status quo is what contributed to the standing and prosperity of the 50 people involved in creating the Australian Constitution.

That part 9 of the British Act was never about “democracy.” Nor did it consider the people as having any interest, or say, in the way the new enlarged colony of the Commonwealth was to be governed.

So, here we are in the 21 Century. We need to ask ourselves, “Why are we still using an antiquated and out-of-date document, put together by 50 colonial politicians and lawyers for their express benefit, and without any input from the people?”

It is a deliberate lie to say the Constitution was approved by the Australian people. It never was. The British Act was never, ever presented at any referendum in Australia, and neither were the alterations made to Part 9 of that Act.

If Australia is ever to become an independent nation the British Act has to be repealed and the Australian people must get together to write their own Australian Constitution. The people need to say what sort of Government they want and what powers, privileges and immunities they are prepared to allow their elected representatives.

That is why we need a new Constitution for Australia.