Australia’s Society Desperately Needs These Eight Myths
These myths are an accepted part of our culture and basically never questioned.
In theory, our society should have been reformed long ago but
for these sacred myths that hold it together.
Myth No 1 – Australia is a “Democracy”
This myth is sustained because almost no one knows what a “democracy” really is. There seems to be no commonly
accepted definition of the “system” other than a host of variable and subjective generalisations related mainly to the concept of “freedom”.
Some people even claim the 19th century British Act Australia uses as their
Constitution embeds a system of “democracy” when clearly, reading the archives of the “founding fathers,” it shows that the idea of “democracy” was deliberately shunned by those early politicians.
The fact that a
vote was given to a few qualified male voters back in the 19th century for electing some selected members for the colonial Legislative Assemblies, and in a few cases for the Colonial Legislative Councils, cannot be construed as a democratic system.
A proper “democratic” system ensures the elected representatives can be held fully accountable to the people at any time during their term of office, not just once in every three years or so.
A true “democracy” guarantees
that the elected representatives serve their constituents as their first priority, before that of any political party or other vested interest.
A true “democracy” guarantees that the people have the sole ownership of their nation’s
Constitution and it is the people who determine the form of Government they want to best serve the interests of the people and the nation.
Unfortunately, “democracy” in Australia fails each of these criteria, let alone any concept of a “free”
press, an unbiased and independent judiciary or any Government system uncorrupted by money and influence.
Just ask yourself when was the last Government that did things for the benefit of the people that wasn’t aligned to the corporate interests?
Australia has become an oligarchy under the control of the unelected vested interests sitting on the Boards of the political parties and corporations. Those Board members need the myth of “democracy” to maintain the illusion that the people
are in control.
Myth No 2 – The monarchy is our “Saviour”
This myth has to be some sort of hangover from the days when the kings and queens were anointed with the concept of “divine right.” That
occurred with the blessing of various types of religious human beings who claimed some direct relation to a “God” of whatever description.
In Australia’s case, that all went out the window in the 1700’s when the British king
was allowed to sit on the throne under the British Parliament’s Act of Settlement. The monarch was allowed to assume the role as the head of the Church of England, which was a church founded by the forebear, Henry the VIII. That church cannot claim any
legitimate relationship to the theology expounded by the Catholic Church and its nebulous connection to a disciple of Jesus.
Our present Queen, let alone her heirs and successors, have absolutely no legal or political authority over anything that happens
in Australia, and the Queen has stated emphatically, that she cannot, and will not, interfere in the affairs of Australia.
Despite the farcical attempt to create a “Queen of Australia,” that notion is so absolutely ridiculous that it is
incomprehensible how any rational person could accept the idea. The only way a “Queen of Australia” can be created is through the will and agreement of the people, and anyone so chosen, would be obliged to swear allegiance to the Australian people
at a formal coronation.
Under our present laws, despite the fact whether they are constitutional or not, there is no legal avenue available to any Australian citizen to appeal to the British monarchy for assistance. In the past, Australians did have
an appeal of last resort to the British Privy Council, which was akin to a monarch’s special court. That last line of appeal was cancelled out without the authority of the Australian people via the unconstitutional ratification of the 1986 Australia
Act by the British Parliament.
Let’s face it, the concept of “royalty” is an anachronism and despite the vaunted titles they like to give each other, they are just plain ordinary people the same as us. The major difference is
that they have the benefit of some enormous inherited and unearned “wealth” from the nefarious and often dubious actions of their ancestors.
Why the media continues to give these people the ongoing publicity they do can only be explained
through pandering to the envy of people swamped in the delusion of their everyday lives - and the money the media makes out of it as its by-product.
Myth No 3 – That Australia is an “egalitarian” society
This is a myth that the politicians and the media love to perpetuate for the relatively successful effort to confirm the selected people we are allowed to vote for as “our” representatives in Parliaments and Councils are just ordinary people
like us. In truth, most of them are just ordinary and often mediocre people at that, but it all changes when they get elected, and from then on, it is a completely different footy match. The principle qualification for the job is their willingness to unquestionably
follow the party line. Once elected they become people in “power”. People who are able to lord it over us ordinary people. They become people who are able to influence what happens and influence the way decisions are made. That influence is the
“currency” of politics and it becomes much more valuable if one is the member of the political party that holds the reins of government.
Today, in Australia, politics is about money. In reality, nothing else matters. Becoming a politician
is the pathway to riches. Just ask any of the now retired ex-Prime Ministers we have their snouts in the public trough through the generous pensions and superannuation they have given themselves. Or the ex-Ministers who have moved into cushy well paid “jobs
for the boys” when they get turfed out of Parliament.
No society should condone the level of inequality that now exists in Australia. How is it possible to justify the enormous extremes that currently exist in the remuneration of employees? The
CEO of a corporation does not work any “harder” than a qualified tradesman or specialist employed in the organisation. Certainly not to justify something like a hundred or more times the remuneration those employees are paid, especially as it applies
in the banking industry.
Why is it that a public servant of what should be an essential public responsibility of the Government, the postal service, for example, is paid some six million dollars, approximately twelve times more than the Prime Minister?
Surely, the position of Prime Minister of the Commonwealth has to be considered the highest level public servant in the bureaucracy?
Although many of Australia’s richest people are attributed with having assets worth billions of dollars, what
is often ignored is their respective levels of debt.
The media seems to have a preoccupation in pandering to this inequality by flouting the excesses of these “elites” as though it is the normal and accepted state of affairs. There are basically
five things of prime concern to the mainstream media. In no particular order of priority, they are (a) disasters of any kind (b) murder and mayhem (c) the rich and famous (d) Sport and (e) Government and political shenanigans. For some reason, the media also
has a penchant in publicising the sale of those multi-million dollar homes that are way outside the aspiration of ninety-five percent of the population. The media also seems obsessed with the rising growth in house prices as though the increasing unaffordability
of housing is some sort of virtue.
All these examples tend to emphasise the huge inequality that has now become, more or less, an accepted part of the Australian culture.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics measures the average medium wage from
combining full and part-time employment at around $53,000 p.a. When this is compared to the minimum salary of a politician of $203,000 plus expenses, rising to more than $350,000 plus even more expenses for a Minister, it becomes obvious why there is no motivation
to do anything about addressing the inequality. The politicians don’t give a shit.
Myth No. 4—That Australia can go broke and run out of money
This has to be one of the most farcical myths that has been deliberately
perpetrated on the public by every Government before 1911 and since 1923.
Only the Fisher Labor Government has had the courage to do the right thing by the Australian people. That Government created the original Commonwealth Bank of Australia as a publicly
owned people’s bank with the complete authority to apply Sections 51(xii) and Section 51(xiii) as contained in Clause 9 of the British Act to form the Commonwealth of Australia.
Those Sections give the Federal Government complete control of all
“currency, coinage and legal tender” required for use in Australia, and they also give the Federal Government complete control of all banking carried out in the Commonwealth EXCEPT State banks that operate within the borders of their State.
Every single person in Australia knows what the Australian coins and notes look like and where they come from. Every single legitimate coin and note comes from the Government and only the Government. No one else is allowed to create a copy of a coin or
print a copy of a note without risking the severe penalties that apply to counterfeiting when they are caught.
So, why does the Government let the private banks do that – counterfeit money by using the subterfuge of issuing it as interest-bearing
We all know we can convert every dollar we borrow from a bank into physical coins and notes if we so demand so, isn’t that proof that the Government is allowing the banks to create money?
If the Government has the complete control
of all the money needed for use in Australia, why does the Government have to borrow money from anyone? Why does the Government create Government Bonds which they sell to the private sector and then have to pay the buyers interest on something the Government
It doesn’t make sense.
We all know the Australian dollar and Australian coins are the only legally recognised medium of exchange used in Australia. Any business done in Australia with a foreign currency is done entirely at the
risk of the buyers and sellers and carries no Government guarantee.
There is absolutely nothing in the British Act Australia uses as its “Constitution” that limits the amount of “coinage, currency and legal tender” the Government
needs to finance its planned and approved Parliamentary commitments. So, how is it possible that the Australian Government can go broke or run out of money?
It simply cannot happen and our experience from the way the original Commonwealth Bank of Australia
operated from 1911 to 1923 is clear proof of this fact. It was only through the treachery of the Bruce Government in killing off the Bank in 1923 that has lumbered Australia in the never-ending debt spiral. A spiral that is now beyond any Government to control
– UNLESS – they have the guts to make use of the magnificent gift given to them by the otherwise, antiquated and out of date 19th century British Act.
Myth No. 5—We have an independent and impartial judiciary
This myth is really just an article of faith based on long-accepted propaganda depicted in the well-known statue of a blindfolded woman holding up a set of balanced scales. “Justice” is blind and impartial we are told but what we are not told
is that “justice” comes at a price and the more money one has the more chance one has to get the sort of “justice” they want.
Our judicial system is a game played out in a court under a flexible set of “rules” involving
technicalities and precedents that are, invariably, completely beyond the comprehension of the people to whom the laws are supposed to apply.
The problem is compounded by the frightening ignorance of most of the people responsible for initiating the
parliamentary legislation that becomes law. It is further compounded by the refusal of the politicians to insist on proper reform to bring the many antiquated existing laws up to date. So many of the existing laws need to discard all the obsolete and irrelevant
parts that go back decades and are related to different conditions, and often, to quite different circumstances.
Coupled to this is the clearly proven bias of the nation’s highest court when the appointees are judges chosen and approved by the
Prime Minister of the day. No Prime Minister is ever going to appoint a judge to the High Court of Australia who is not compatible to beliefs of the political party in power at the time.
The corruption of the High Court is further accentuated when split
decisions are allowed. Every such decision is proof that the decision is based on opinion and not the true and proper assessment of the legal position. There is absolutely no logical justification to assume a majority opinion is any more valid than a
Furthermore, a decision based on the majority opinion is effectively usurping a form of executive authority to the court that overrides the assumed executive authority of the Parliament. According to the 19th century British
Act only the Governor-General, acting on behalf of the Queen, has executive authority in the Commonwealth of Australia. Not even the Parliament has executive authority as no legislation coming out of Parliament can become law until given assent by the Governor
Myth No. 6—That we live in a “free” society
Of course, this does not include the millions locked up in “our” prisons or those prisons that are now run as profitable business enterprises.
What we are talking about is each of us as individuals in our society. Obviously, if we are going to live in a community with other people there needs to be a set of rules as to how we should relate to each other. Those rules are our laws and they have
to apply to everyone. As soon as we accept the fact that our society is governed by a set of “rules” we have no choice but to automatically accept the fact that our “freedom” is restricted. If the rules are fair and just, and if the
rules are written in a way they can be read and understood by any reasonably educated person, then we can accept them as being, at least in part, for our safety and welfare.
The problem arises when we give a certain bunch of people the authority to
do what they purport to do our best interests, but in fact, they mostly act in the best interests of themselves, their mates or their political party. Often, this becomes an imposed restriction on our “freedom” that is not something we would accept
if given the chance.
How “free” are we if we don’t have money in our pockets? Just ask any of our homeless people who try to survive in our cities without a roof over their heads, a bed to sleep in, or knowing where their next meal
is going to come from. And don’t forget the people who are forced by circumstances to live in a state of poverty when Australia is supposed to be one of the richest “developed” countries of the “west”.
Why isn’t it
a priority Government policy to eliminate poverty and homelessness in this supposedly “rich” country with its relatively small population?
How “free” are we if we don’t have a job and have to become “bludgers”
who cannot conform to the accepted standards of our society? Our society these days is controlled by money, and “economics” has become the false “god” to which everyone is forced to worship. That false “god” is the father
of “growth”, which in turn, has spawned the offspring of “profit at any cost” and the consequences of waste and environmental degradation. We are all locked into this “worship” and can only opt out at the expense of personally
sacrificing all the “wonders” and “benefits” of our modern society. Does this mean our only path to real “freedom” is that of personal sacrifice?
Does that sound like a free decision that anyone can
make? Or does that sound like something people do after the immense pressure of economic forces crushes them into subjection?
Myth No. 7—Buying will make you happy.
This myth is put forward mainly by the flood of
advertising that ceaselessly bombards us day and night. Nowadays, we are even further manipulated through the addiction to social media and the subtle indoctrination of sublime advertising to which we are totally unaware. A lot of us feel a gnawing emptiness,
something deep down that is alien to our surface emotions. Most of us flush away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to the security of our families if we are lucky, and to boxes called houses or apartments. We switch on the TV to watch the ludicrously
artificial so-called “reality shows” about people who are either worse than us or others who live such glamorous lives to which most of us can never aspire.
If we’re lucky, we’ll make enough money during the week to afford enough
beer on the weekend to help us make sense of it all. Mostly, we would have to drink ourselves into a stupor before giving up the quest as a lost cause. But none of that is likely to bring us fulfillment. So what now? Well, the ads say buying will do it. Try
to smother the depression and desperation under a blanket of bigger and better flat-screen TVs, or even curved ones, luxury holidays or a Jet Skis. Now does your life have meaning? No? Well, maybe you have to drive that Jet Ski a little
faster! Crank it up until your bathing suit flies off and then you’ll feel alive!
The dark truth is that we have to believe the myth that consuming is the answer or else we won’t keep the wheel turning and the bottom will fall
out of “the market”. And if we decide to stop keeping the wheel turning, then maybe we will start to think, and maybe, just start to ask questions. Those questions are not good for the ruling elite. The status quo of our society
demands that nothing should be allowed to upset the daily exploitation of 90 plus percent of us who are willing to accept what we are told and never question those who know what is better for us.
Myth No. 8—That the “Constitution”
can only be changed by referendum
This myth has survived because of the hypocrisy from the academics, lawyers, and politicians. Because very few ordinary Australians know anything about the 19th century British Act that is referred
to as Australia’s “Constitution”, they also accept this myth.
There are some thirty-nine provisions in Clause 9 of the British Act that allows Parliament to change the meaning and intent of the related Sections through legislation,
and without the need for a referendum.
Parliaments over the past century have used these provisions to completely alter some Sections to the point of eliminating their original purpose. The Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Act 1975
is a classic example. It completely nullified Section 46 of the “Constitution” through the provision, “Until Parliament otherwise provides...” That Section dealt with the penalties payable for each day a disqualified member sits
in Parliament. Subsection 4 of the above 1975 Act states –“On and after the date of commencement of this Act, a person is not liable to pay any sum under Section 46 of the Constitution and no suit shall be instituted, continued, heard or determined
in pursuance of that Section.”
Even the absence of the above provision, “Until Parliament otherwise provides”, or words of a similar nature, Parliament has stooped to alter the intent of Sections without any approval of the people.
The Westminster Act which the Australian Parliament partly accepted in 1942 tried to change the way the British Act is intended to apply. The Australian Act of 1986 made even more radical changes, and again, without any attempt to obtain the approval of the
Probably one of the worst examples is the way the Parliament has corruptly interfered with the clear and specific intent of Section 128. That Section deals with the way referendums are to be conducted and the Section states eight separate times
that “the proposed law” must be presented to the people at a referendum.
There is no provision in this Section to allow Parliament to alter those clear instructions. There is absolutely nothing that allows the Government to ask a simple
question and avoid spelling out the full details of “the proposed law”.
About the worst possible result coming from this unconstitutional action is the Subsection 5 that was included in the new Section 105A when it was written and placed
in the “Constitution: some six months after the referendum relating to State debts. The Subsection reads - “Every such agreement and any such variation thereof shall be binding upon the Commonwealth and the States parties thereto notwithstanding
anything contained in this Constitution or the Constitution of the several States or in any law of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or of any State”.
There is no way the referendum would have been approved had the people known this was
to be included in “the proposed law”.
What is just as appalling is the fact that the politicians and lawyers have allowed this abomination to remain in the “Constitution” since 1928, without any attempt to rectify it.
The point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, and the corruption of our “rulers” – those people we have so little control over – is that they don’t need guns and tear gas to keep us docile and exploited.
All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker.
How’s that for a great fairy tale to lull the adults to sleep?
Maybe, it’s way past the time for us to wake up.