W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page   Contents Page for this Volume  What is New


Chapter One






An Excursion into Wilderness Scenes in Australian Homemaking

News 403,

The Australian September 27-28, 2008

The Advertiser Review, September 27,  2008

When a major Australian national newspaper places the heading, Kids and Carers are both  victims of DOCS on its front page, and continues it at length with photographs and text and the second page, there is cause for possible interest. It is not a light one.

The DOCS is the Department of Community Services, here seen as active  in one Australian State, and the message is not merely illustrative of the sort of thing the UN approach to education entices, as seen in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child.  It reaches further.

Before proceeding, let us note something of the nature and development of that United Nations document.

In 1959 came the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, a general statement seemingly generated by need, and desired by the enlightened. The 'CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD' had some 10 years of meetings, and THEN in 1989 came the UN adoption of this as a document. It went much further, was highly specific, and by skilful use of gobbledegook, made it almost look GOOD to let the kids choose friends and information and life style and methods, and freedom from such horrors as intrusive parental discipline or direction. Like gods, they could choose anything that did not OBVIOUSLY harm society. The STATE had taken over parenthood Why not ? Were they not clever men ? ASK them! You do not even always need to do that...

The story briefly was this. Two boys were found who apparently had lived their whole lives in a a house with windows covered with black plastic. The mother, allegedly with apparent mental illness, tried to keep them from the harm of the outside world, it seems.

Police broke down the door, and then found the boys, then aged 8 and 10 years, their clothes thick with grease, hair long and wild enough to be in the far out sector of expensive hair-do appearances of the wild look: but this was not paid for, merely obtained by neglect. Grisly details proceed.

Taken from this environment and brought to a sensitive-seeming, caring family, they improved most markedly by account, but were allegedly met by the Enlightenment of the Department of Community Services. By report, it was felt that they needed to be removed from such cloistered or containing care, and allowed to express their innermost selves freely. In due course, they became street kids.

The carer from whose home they were by authority removed, most concerned for their welfare and contributing evidently in her way wisely to its attainment, was devastated. It is alleged that in such a social or socialistic or at any rate contrived control situation as the DOCS is considered to be, there is scope for such things as spite, where somebody is averse to somebody else or their ways or their type or their mould or their morals or their discerned limitations, and does not allow this or that to proceed. It seems that here is scope for the sort of absolutism of Communism without the creed!

What is the creed ? Before we revert to the UN declaration, consider the rest of story. In due course, the DOCS told the carers who were most happy with developments for the children for whom they provided, that the children would have to be removed from them. Why was this ? First they were told of certain 'rules' to be obeyed (fine in principle, but in practice the question is crucial - WHICH rules and with WHAT objective ?). "They are not your children; they are only in your care." This seems a true statement, but with what implications ? That they were shortly to discover.

One rule appears to be that the home of the carer was to be treated as a boarding house, allowing the boys "to do whatever they wanted." One can understand their chagrin. If the boys are to be the moral tone and principle-setting body, c/- the DOCS, then what tone ? and what sort of moan can come from the wrong tone in ANY house, that is set by two masters... Now if the 'rules' were honesty and co-operation in reasonable chores, courtesy and freedom to have their own beliefs so long as they did not contradict integrity and honesty and productive labour, there would be some hope.

However, satisfaction was not to be obtained for the actual rules or desires or ideals or pragmatic ideas of the DOCS, in the home of the carer, so that it appears that the children were removed from this progressing care. Thus, when one of the children at 14, ran away with one of the Bali Nine drug runners, the carers 'grounded' him; but the DOCS removed him from the carer. The next carer did not succeed, and then the child went to a group home. Later, the boy pleaded guilty to supplying a prohibited rug, after selling an ecstasy tablet to a girl who took it and died.

In the article, multiplied cases are mentioned in the DOCS situation; and the dissatisfaction seems mutual in many cases. At issue however is the ground of the rules. IF the children are to be free to follow any desire or nostrum or wish or procedure or path, provided it is not listed as crime, then unruled, untutored, inconsistent, vague and often vicious developments, contrary to design and likely maturity with knowledge, can proceed to devastate. The Department with the UN is concerned for results, but vague to the ultimate, as long as they work together, concerning the means. It is all vague desiderata, idealistic sounding but empty and  vacuous substitutes for actual morals and realistic cover for needs.

The child tends, in many ways,  to be treated as a young god, as if the best thing for him or her is just to be let alone to develop, like an aircraft being constructed by mongols, as seems best. To whom ? why to the child, aided and abetted by the government controllers. It is they, according to the case here in point, who HELPED the devastation of the child, and they are by her regarded as 'do-gooders' in a pejorative fashion indeed! What is here seen in practice has for long been underlying many government approaches to children.

As noted in The Mystery of Iniquity, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has come close to Australia. Thus


3. The Burdekin Contribution

Meanwhile, a former federal Human Rights Commissioner, Brian Burdekin, made certain observations on the topic of Child Welfare Legislation, that dealing in particular with child abuse. In view of the mish­mash of States laws/regulations on this topic, he expressed the view that there should be a federally induced conformity for these laws or rules. The instrument in view was the Child Rights Convention. This, it is reported (from Tine Dolgobol, Flinders University), was "not taken up".

From one associated with the Children's Interests Bureau, it appears that there are in fact numbers of bodies interested in, moving towards and seeking to induce the implementation of the Child Rights Convention into domestic law.

Now the relationship of Australia to the UN Convention is quite imposing.


Update from the Australian Human Rights Commission

1.1 The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out children’s rights

In November 1989, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). It is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the world. There are only 2 countries which have not signed the CRC; the United States of America and Somalia.

Australia ratified the CRC in December 1990. This means that Australia has a duty to ensure that all children in Australia enjoy the rights set out in the treaty.

The CRC contains the full range of human rights – civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.

Some of the core principles of the CRC are:

Click here to read the text of the CRC

1.2 Australia must report on children’s rights to the UN

Part of Australia’s commitment to the CRC includes reporting to the UN about the state of children’s rights, every 5 years. The next report is due in January 2008.

The reporting process allows the UN to periodically monitor Australia’s commitment to promoting and protecting children’s rights. The reporting process provides an opportunity for developing better policies and planning for the promotion and realisation of children’s rights in Australia.

We note moreover from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this:

 States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

(a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

As often in such idealistic and morally vacuous endeavours - carefully trying to avoid anything too particular and giving a glamorous approach to what is often equatable with nothing - like poetry in a mine with explosions and shaking earth  - the words sound better than their implications. "The best interests of the child" will OF COURSE be defined by the philosophy, religion, secularity or whatever other thing seems suitable to those governing, both in the UN and in the Australian connection, but especially in the former. The best interests of the child we are told many things. These may be found in the

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance
and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

Proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981

1. The parents or, as the case may be, the legal guardians of the child have the right to organize the life within the family in accordance with their religion or belief and bearing in mind the moral education in which they believe the child should be brought up.

2. Every child shall enjoy the right to have access to education in the matter of religion or belief in accordance with the wishes of his parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, and shall not be compelled to receive teaching on religion or belief against the wishes of his parents or legal guardians, the best interests of the child being the guiding principle.

3. The child shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, respect for freedom of religion or belief of others, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.

4. In the case of a child who is not under the care either of his parents or of legal guardians, due account shall be taken of their expressed wishes or of any other proof of their wishes in the matter of religion or belief, the best interests of the child being the guiding principle. 5. Practices of a religion or belief in which a child is brought up must not be injurious to his physical or mental health or to his full development, taking into account article 1, paragraph 3, of the present Declaration.


Note from  the text, this provision concerning the child: "He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, respect for freedom of religion or belief of others, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men."

HOW ? Certainly it could not be in terms of militant Islam, since one or two of the above terms do not fit for it. Again, it could not be as a Christian either, since these do not believe, on a biblical basis, in "universal brotherhood" as the ruling concept concerning the human race, but as Christ showed in John 8:41-44 (cf. 14:30-31, I John 2:22), are aware that there are TWO seeds in the human race.

" 'You do the deeds of your father.' Then they said to Him,

'We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.'

"Jesus said to them,

'If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.

"You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth,
because there is no truth in him.

"When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it."

To be sure, the love of God towards man is so great that He sent His only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him might not perish but have eternal life. It is not a racial matter, and it is not even a spiritual racial matter. There is nothing of discrimination in it. It is all FACT. EITHER one belongs to the Creator/Redeemer or one does not. If not, then as unredeemed, one is of the unsaved race, pathologically separated from God. These are not hated, but so loved that every effort is made, price is paid to secure their deliverance from this quite unnecessary condition. It is like those who smoke tobacco. It is not a question of hatred, but of concern that they STOP it before it stops them!

So great is the SPIRITUAL domain, as is obvious to anyone considering the domain of human aims, methods and decisions, that although there is a PHYSICAL membership in one race, there are two spiritual races, those inside and outside Jesus Christ, and this the more obviously when knowledge of Him is available.

Thus, YOU, said Christ, to those rejecting Him, are of your father, the devil. Those of the truth hear His voice (John 18:37), as He told Pilate when on trial. Now the concept of having 'respect' for the religious freedom of others is fine, since this is a fundamental biblical and rational proposition. Freedom does not prevent the results of error, but enables it; yet it does not violate the preference in advance.

We ARE equipped with power in this field, however damaged the stricken hearts of the members of this race, since the  Fall, and to presume to dictate is unwise. However the respect for the freedom is far removed from respect for the religion. Does a doctor respect smoking because it is freely opted for in the mind of its practitioners ? Does he do so when a galling and appalling case of lung cancer comes his way, with agony and anguish, shortened life and lost opportunity and potential reeks like radiation ?

Does a Christian potentially,  at least, acknowledge as LOST this option with children WHO MUST show a concept of universal brotherhood with the implied and stated tolerance. ? Of course not: so there is the religious rampage already provided for. His children if in such schools as conform (as Australia by treaty is supposed to make them do) to this UN dictum and dogma, MUST be taught on an alien assumption. It is not free: it is forced. It is not education, it is indoctrination. It is not neutral religion, it is forcible religion.

What then: THOUGH tolerance of untruth is never an honest option, yet toleration of people's freedom to follow it is a profound need: act now, pay latter. As in the credit catastrophe in the USA, people are free to be greedy, governments are free to enable vast borrowings by banks, with ludicrously little asset backing for loans, while profits soar; but such a liberty leads to ruin for many.

Rules for restraint are needed in any game or serious business. Liberty is great; government has its place, not to ruin the game, but to act moderately to prevent ruin by it.

So here. It is impossible to RESPECT religions or kinds of politics which bring needless ruin through incoherent laxity or blinded greed or desire.

Discrimination has two aspects:  the discriminating and the discriminatory. In the former, the discriminating, man is using his gifts of mind to determine distinctions and make differences to be analysed, seeing what is justly to be said of that in various perspectives, phases and regards. This is use of powers given, and failure to use these is irresponsible, a virtual request for disaster.

In the latter, the discriminatory, there is the opposite: an unwillingness to give fair and reasonable assessment of various aspects, performance levels, analysable components of things, so that the 'answer' preceded the question. Such is racism, such as is shown in the frequent but not pervasive Islamic view of Israel's modern appearance as a catastrophe, to be remedied by its removal from the land; or the view that Australian aborigines are a princely spiritual class,  per dream-time and other non-materialist occupations, that they were the first inhabitants of this land, and that they were or even are its carers or 'custodians' - a ludicrous mis-description; and that it belongs to them in some sense, though they did not show evidence of having a coherent, controlled, unified government over all the land.

That is a type of non-realistic racism*1 , as objectionable as another form is foolish, namely the one which would have made them sub-human, as implied in one account of a foreign scientist wanting a body for the museum.

In fact, none of such concepts is sound or factually warranted (cf. TMR Ch. 8), distinctively. Each makes assumption the rule. Each abuts into fact-land with emaciated theory (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!).

Conceptions in this field on both sides as extremes, can and do readily tend to manipulate many of  that indigenous race into not caring about being educated, not caring for their bodies and not bothering about the work ethic which is part of being responsible. That many suffer for this, in any race that is seduced into it, is obvious. Anything to sustain illusion, however, in such fields, is racism, a special approach to a given race not founded on sustainable evidence, but on pre-conception. Like all unrealism, it tends to be destructive of those who, for objectives good or evil, are so mis-regarded. One of the aboriginal leaders*1A himself has marked it out as wrong-headed and destructive to reduce the moral obligations on aborigines, that is, to provide without adequate challenge, making them into a decaying body.

Such misuses or misconstructions are mere oddities of preference, lied or presumptuously tied into language, and made by propaganda a cultural assumption. Whole territories or coasts can be given to aboriginal care, control and rights of passage,  on such unfactual assumptions, masquerading as historical when in fact more in keeping with what is hysterical politics: admitting guilt which does not exist in the hearts and lives of millions, and attacking by implication the wonderful kindness and care of multiplied persons who cared for and aided aborigines in the past. Such was the folly of the Rudd PM apology, so infamously wrought and famously provided. It was unfactual, partial, glib in thought whatever may have been the emotion behind it, and has directly and statedly helped to lead to the apportionment by law, subject to test, of a highly developed fishing area, a significant portion of the coastline in the Northern Territory, to those who did not create the industry.

Generalisations such as those of Rudd in his infamous 'apology' are so academically ludicrous as to unworthy of any respect. They warp all into a mould as if whatever was done to aboriginal children leaving home, in the past,  had only one thing in common: namely error, and required only one need in view, admission of guilt, at least as a first instalment.

No one can  apologise in any accuracy of ethics or fact, for what he or she has not done, or desired, or wished, or advanced, or for what has had neither appeal nor implementation; let alone for what has at all times been abhorrent. That is the level of the Mad Hatter's Tea Party in Alice in Wonderland, a mix up of words which would be humorous if not taken seriously, showing merely the lost train of thought and versatility of imagination when the intellect is asleep or drugged as the case may be.

Aborgines tend to have many good features; their trend in times past to move from*1A materialistic pre-occupation has for good logical reason been commendable; but this does not mean that their religion is good or superior. That is a separate question. One's own observations based on years of dealings with aborigines and hearing their stories and watching their progress or regress during many involvements,  is that they have far more potential than paternalistic government assumptions imply, can laugh at and scorn what some regard as the sentimentally superficial way in which they are regarded, and deliberately manipulate judges and the like for their advantage. This is not said in any censorious way, nor is it more than a trend. Yet is is significant.

ANY child, not given strong impetus to education, allowed to have what is best determined by evolutionary theories, and unmotivating philosophies toward any good thing, permitted as one often sees, to go to 'school' for years and then be unable to read, while showing considerable intelligence once motivation is provided, can readily regress. Where a whole 'culture' is allowed to disintegrate into a secular wish-list, where there is provided money and freedom to be inebriated at leisure and to be supported in it, to take drugs to measure and to live with it out of sheer boredom and frustration, seeking in many cases little other then relief and pleasure, then results such as we find readily appear.

Readily in such circumstances can frustration wedded to resentment lead to crime, if not for money or drugs, then for revenge on the 'system' (much as some children seek to get their own back, on parents felt afterwards to have been to this or that), or assertion of manhood, or womanhood, or establishment of some feeling or zest, which can more fully express the latent energy and desires in the heart. Ignore  God and reap; make morals derelict and eat the fruit of what you reap. Play the sophisticate socially, and find the psyche revolt, loathing for succour and non-cooperation for provisions. Such is understandable as a reaction, though uncommended; and such is often found. What is not founded on God and truth and morality and responsibility tends to founder, if not early, then later; and the foundering if not financial, is spiritual.

Tendencies found widely in many races, to self-indulgence, laziness and being pandered to by wealth or because of position, these readily bear fruit when expectations are low and excuses proliferate like puss.

Thus what is BEST for the child is NOT an inability to read after 10 years of schooling. Means to secure something better seem slow to arrive, since motivation tends to be low, because ideals presented tend to be confused and nothing of precision and power is there to motivate from the seduced secular State, which is so busy minding its secular business that it as inspiring as a sand pit.

The confused UN document, which is supposed to give to all these wonderful idealistic gifts, at the same time in principle excludes various religions from consideration by its brotherhood concept, and annuls the testimony of the world's (nominally) most populous religion by its testimony. That is going a fair way from equality and liberty. You MAY NOT ... it is inadmissible we read - bring up a child on such a program*1B. It is a case where liberty excludes. The child being COMPELLED to be brought up on this anti-biblical model, is thus excluded from a biblical upbringing, and if the case arrives, then this point could be made and the child removed as required, in order to allow the tenets of the UN's religious beliefs to be accommodated.

What the child receives "must not be injurious" ... to what ? To physical and mental health and to the desired development. Into what ? why into the brotherhood of man exemplar according to that moral Moses without the Law, the United Nations. To what then should the young boy or girl be directing attention ?   To what if not this homogeneity of race and place, this startling contemporaneous fellowship of the brave, this vision of freedom from constraint other than that of the United Nations!

It would be necessary to be at least temporarily blinded not to see in such absolutism founded on mere relativity and the proud-flesh of baseless philosophy, a very satisfactory basis for the loud-mouth of the coming anti-Christian leader (II Thessalonians 2, Revelation 13, Daniel 7:20). How can he most easily attain to his deceptive aims except by confusion, and what better confusion than this style or character of thing: that you speak loftily, pompous words of seeming goodness, while in fact deleting the things of God with suave sovereignty. It is indeed, as Daniel declares II Peter confirms and Revelation shows (Daniel 7:20-21, II Peter 2:1-3,18-20, Revelation 13:5  cf. Biblical Blessings Ch. 2), with "pompous words" or "great swelling words of vanity" that this spirit of disengagement and subversion will express itself, and few are to be found better at this skill, than such as emanate in principles from the UN, as seen when instead of feeling a certain poetry about them,  we consider another aspect: what they mean!

If therefore any such person or party, engaged in the bringing up of children, should be moved into any other mould than this pompous pretension of the UN,  why then, with considerable and even commendable restraint, the Authorities might find it necessary to avoid the mental ... implications of a religious nature adverse to this United Concoction, and the lack of 'development' which such narrowness might lead,. They might, eventually ... remove that child. How could parents NOT in agreement with that so estimable body, the United Nations even EXPECT to bring up children who believed in the God of truth, creation and redemption, and not in that which is the common policy of the nations, admirably invented and carefully policed! While the use of force at the present is not often in view, perhaps, the concept of disjoining from such adverse conceptions is. Certainly, in South Australia, the entire school system lies, almost exclusively, in supine abandon to this sort of evolutionary-paradigm, servitor of relativism and aid to humanism, and with what zeal this illicit chain is forged to replace the legal liberty (cf.  TMR Ch. 8).


One observes that every 5  years the CONFORMITY of the member nation, like Australia, is subject of international and UNITED review by this parent body, the conceptions of which in the realm of morality are founded on ... well, itself. What more could one wish ? If the NATIONS gather together (as in Psalm 2) to TELL us what is needed, then that is that. ANYONE wishing to worship this world and its empty-headed vacuities, founding itself on itself and the lot on nothing, MUST obey and follow the United Authorities, that is, the United Nations. As in Psalm 2, what does it matter if it is in the most intense disregard and ruinous collision with the God who made very one of the pundits whose views are encapsulated in such witlessness, it is STILL the United Authority and Australia is still subject to this sovereign, strangely enough, voluntarily!

Let us look a little further into the UN Child Rights Convention of 1989, to which Australia became party in

Article 12

1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

Article 13

1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.

2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Article 14

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 15

1. States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly.

2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 16

1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference


In simple and practical terms, then, the child may have whom he will for association, company, sharing of information, moral choice, what ideas he will, what information he will and manifest it in free expression as he will. In this way two things are wrought. Firstly, the child is delivered from oppressive intrusion by carping parents whose minds are never satisfied with anything short of a dictatorial rule over the poor young creature's magnificent prospects of development. In line with this, he may become a rabid Islamic terrorist, so long as he is not about to murder, or a Communist orator in the presence of his elders, though this may be as anti-scientific as organic evolution (), and he can be helped in his way by the wayward, whose disingenuity with anything which is not strictly illegal can become a necessary prop to the child's development.

This has always been the trouble with Kantian type ethics, in which you have only to be able to will that something is just the thing for all the world, and it is right up there with morality. In fact the blinded Communist and Islamicist may have just the right idea for all the world, and may like the psychological explorer by drugs not yet condemned publicly, and the child can imbibe so long as the direct and citable nature of the organisation has not actually reached the level of the illegal. To show the child its logical errors becomes oppressive, to point out the danger and peril of associations becomes wild and frenzied not-up-to-scratch, non-twenty-first-century morality, and so to be avoided lest the child be strangled in spirit, hit in heart or denied that who-knows-to-what future to which his fascinating destiny may be leading.

You cannot make morality by thinking it would look well on all the world. Drugs and delusion are alternate methods of being in error in such matters. There has to be a COMPETENCE for CONCEPTS, such as this brotherhood of all men in one world where they move together, and this hands-off approach to children. Since this is taboo, and the mere desire is the rule, then this is merely one more mischievous way in which the moral engineering of society becomes the amoral construction of culture for kids.

HOW COULD a child both be given the desirable liberty to think and speak*1C, and yet be kept from the teeming follies which as with the children in the case first cited above, readily ruin those who being in mid-teens find the exact answer to all things in their developing maturity, choosing various extreme forms of loud, blasting music, with sick and sallow morals and rites, including orgiastic suggestiveness, so that ANYTHING becomes, like any other disease, the choice. Uninhibited access to any form of association and information becomes the mandate for muddle.

In fact, The Amoral Society, which uses terms of longing with little meaning, raps and realisations suitable for superficiality, and muddles along with contradictory aspects of authority (of the UN) and liberty (WITHIN the religion of the UN), is unworkable. The apparent disasters into which one State is being now reported guilty in Australia is a necessary liability of outcome for such religious irreligion, setting up ideas without foundation except in some relative manner, dependent on WHAT, at any time, PEOPLE FEEL: this is the sort of thing that is acceptable, and not FAILING to meet the grand ideas of the time. In Sodom, for example, they had a very notable concept of such morality, and history has a very notable record of its situation in due course (Jude 7).

Life is a one way process. In time, the child grows through every kind of opportunity and possibility, now wilful, now reasonable, now intemperate, now longing, now lusting, now repenting, now hopeful, now disillusioned, depending somewhat on the case, and the lust may be mental, physical or spiritual or any combination. The freedom to DEMAND the sort of companions and to be able to PRESENT the sort of expression which fits the mood of the moment, as a RIGHT and not a weighed privilege, ignores the immaturity of the child and the vast danger of a scintilla of the spirit becoming a pride of martial independence, with irreversible results, as may again be illustrated in the initial case reviewed in this presentation, in Australia.

16 years of age is enough for a driver's licence, and for many, for molestation rights or rites, depending on how such things, as in ancient temple worship in some nations, are viewed.

There is no LOGICAL possibility for morals outside the Creator (cf. News 19). You CANNOT found yourself on an unknown, man or mankind, that is one conceived as an oddity, an accomplishment of who knows what, based on none knows which principles, which in any case are unprincipled since materialism has no basis except nothing which is all it can contribute: hence there is nothing in all its phases, except going by guessing and ignoring many things: and then declaring this to be morality*1D. It is DESIRE, it is OPINION, it is OPTION, but not morality. Morality requires KNOWLEDGE of what IS right and good. If you lack this, then you are merely pushing your particular foetus of thought into the world of brawling brats who want their own way. Dignifying it by some concept that it is an ideal, or moral, or elevated is mere illusion.

Obligation CANNOT be made moral if it rests only on the POWER of the Government, the REVIEW of the United Nations (big group does not mean good group). It is then ONLY the push of power in a pretext of religion or morality into a dictatorial role. In this respect. Australia in 1990 entered into a world of invasion forces, from unknowledgeable cultural configurations, into an obligatory set of constraints, which are enabled to direct its paths. That such things can be done without having to be passed by a parliamentary majority is one of the best paths to ruin the nation has yet found*2, as it rebounds from a significant and indeed substantial past in the instruction of Christianity, into an ANYTHINGNESS which is as helpful as any other notion, craze or haze. That is, it is wholly unhelpful, being insupportable by reason and unsustainable beyond desire and power.

To dare to make such things to have a force of obligation is nothing short of voluntary submission to foreign and alien ideologies, without the slightest attention to the fact that this is the imposition by the Commonwealth of a form of religion which is constitutionally prohibited. Thus Chapter 5, Section 116 states this:

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

It does not matter by what MECHANISM, the Commonwealth institutes a law, whether by the foreign import concept without parliamentary approval, obligation unthinkable to forfeit, or by direct legislation: it is BEYOND ITS POWERS to bring into fruition at the point of law, what establishes a religion or imposes any religious observance, or prohibits the free exercise of any religion. If anything has the FORCE of law, then what makes it to be so has MADE a law. Circumvention is neither plausible nor ethical. The intention is to prevent a certain sort of society and whatever precludes this is in contravention. The realms involved include what is right and wrong, admissible and not, sound and unsound, right for life and wrong, the path for development of human potential and what is not, and is as surely religious as the concept of universal brotherhood of man. Brotherhood implies a father - who ? The State, the international estate ... its mouthpiece from time to time.  Already, the end of the road appears, no longer so dim in the distant mountains.

Even more obvious is the contravention of the Constitution in the State Circular to Principals (South Australian confrontation with the God of creation and the mind of youth by fiat),  which is given attention in That Magnificent Rock Ch. 8.

As shown there in detail, this often challenged and never logically defended action of the State Government could only be supported on the ground that the State, not being the Commonwealth, is not bound by Commonwealth restrictions. Ostensibly, this may be so; but the receipt by the State of Commonwealth aid in the field of education brings about a partnership which breaches on the part of the Commonwealth its prohibited institution of religion, or intrusion into the free exercise of religion. Moreover, it disenfranchises South Australians from the privileges of the Commonwealth Constitution, so making the land that of the lost as far as power-pollution is concerned. It is not the beauty of the wilderness of the Coorong which alone  is being lost, but the non-confrontational attitude of this State towards Jesus Christ (cf. TMR Appendix).

It is not that the State has gained secularity, but confronted the spiritual, in the case of Biblical Christianity.

In this, that the State has made a religion of its own, in terms of evolutionary conceptions of the irrelevance of God in the substantive realities of creation's mode: this is a religious dictum. The fact that it enshrines a whole naturalistic philosophy which has impact on the practice of religion, in that only one scientific view is exposed to argument and presentation, and the other major one is systematically excluded, is only aggravated by the fact that simply and demonstrably, scientific method is breached in the naturalistic approach, in terms of verification, whereas in the case of creationism, it is followed with precision. This is shown in that site and in TMR Ch. 1, as well as SMR pp. 140ff., and in general in the four volume work, The gods of naturalism have no go!

The application of the above information to this affair will be the subject of the next Chapter, in which the quite naive approach of a newly appointed Museum Director will be focussed to illustrate the point that the the erection of virtual morals based on scientistic subversion of liberty, is part of the holocaust of morals confronting this world, in general increasing its extermination Camps, and invading our own society clandestinely as to method, but openly as to action.

Nor is this the affair of this land and the West alone: in China, where it is an art form of more manifest declarative character, the latest development (The Australian, October 6, 2008) is the deletion of music incorporating significant religious message (especially of definable types). In fact, SO defined is it that Handel's Messiah is now officially sent to the shredder, as far as performance in the land is concerned, along with a work of Mozart, and the message is: NO!

It was this sort of NO that led the exploits of Noah, and the universal flood (cf. News 1), and it is this which has led to the fall of many a civilisation, in its strength apparently like the Titanic, unsinkable in the oceans of time, inexpungeable in the flood of words: but they went (cf. The Pitter-Patter ... Ch. 4). Yes they went in sadness or squalour, or in the apparent heyday of their power, but they went. Ezekiel 29-32 gives you something of the flavour of the matter, Isaiah 13ff. something of its scope.

Impregnable, carelessly prayerless, or prayerfully godless man is like the Spring grass, that is abundant in vital and vivid green, and then suddenly, in its hour, it is browned and insignificant, its beauty quite gone.



See TMR Ch. 8, as marked.

As seen in Ch. 1 of TMR, warped views of various kinds can cause calamities readily, whether from concerns to coddle or to oppress.


·  Indians in America and aborigines in Australia have both suffered - sometimes held in the notion of the inferior, the survival race for being 'created' - far more because of evolutionary misconceptions. Readily this led on to statements in the U.S. about the 'manifest destiny' of white peoples, in terms of entire displacement of others: and this, from the lips of a U.S. President in the heady days of developing Independence and national expansion.

·  How weird the absolute opposite may become, with immoral and insulting presumption leading on, not this time to positive oppression, but rather to the coddling or arrogant patronising of some forms of social service approach to indigenous races, which can sanction debility instead of stimulating development! Such ideas about other races, whether of one extreme or the other, flow readily from evolutionary concepts, and have led to grave and demeaning results, whether from Hitleresque 'superior' racism or any other proud concoction.



We see something of this kind in The Australian, June 28, 2007, in an article by Greg Sheridan. He cites  Noel Pearson, Aboriginal leader, as follows, from Lateline

"The collapse of responsibility that we see,  the wasteland of responsibility in indigenous Australia, is the consequence of government and bureaucracies, and welfare organisations, including NGOs, who have intervened in Aboriginal affairs and said, 'Listen you don't have to take responsibility, you have a whole suite of rights, including the right to welfare, the right to drink, the right to party all night, the right to the trappings of office without being accountable for any return on your role' ... That has really crumbled what were strong and proud people. You know, in Aboriginal families that are functional, there's no greater love of children than Aboriginal people who nurture and look after their own children."

It would be, says Sheridan, idiotic to label Pearson a conservative ...

Whatever care many have been or still are disposed to give to their children, one thing is sure, the onset of drugs and drink paid for by Government, with whatever intention, and the ready access on the part of the young to sustenance, is diverting talent from training and domestic affairs from functionality at a very marked rate, even in Adelaide, as is easy to verify.

There is here one part of the moral holocaust, which Pearson in one way attests. MORALS ARE NOT! It is as desolate as was Hiroshima, in its day. They are NOT to be envisaged except in humanist terms, and this though unable actually to provide any, as patronising and reductive concepts of aborigines vie with indulgent and sleazy ones show in their mutual adverseness and joint adversity, is a nice verbal substitute for them.

Similarly, as in the UN Child Rights affair, the use of the human race as a criterion of morals is like making your car the role for manufacturers, after a few decades. It is meaningless. To measure yourself by means of yourself as the ruler is simple claptrap. Your means of measurement is assumed, not known. You act as if God, when not being so. This leads to insoluble problems, such as trying to be unkind, and trying not to be blind, and succeeding as here, in being both.


A fascinating article in The Australian September 3, 2008, from Helen and Mark Hughes, the former Emeritus Professor and senior fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, has confirmatory material. First it refuses to minimise the extent of Aboriginal welfare dependence, suggesting about 270,000 or half of 540,000 in this category. It acknowledges that some have been moving into 'mainstream society for generations", lawyers, doctors, senior managers, as well as truck drivers, miners, construction workers, clerical staff.

It then proceeds to present a case that more than two-thirds of those 270,000 said to be on welfare live in mainstream labour markets within commuting distance of jobs. In fact, far less than many would imagine live in remote communities without job opportunities. Many are in places like Alice Springs, Port Headland with vast opportunities. Jobs are advertised but frequently not taken. Many Top End employers appealing for workers, appeal in vain. For many aborigines, the payments of welfare exceed the starting wage, meaning a loss of income is work is taken. They are allowed, it is said, to specify their own work, and do this and not paid employment as advertised, if they wish.

Again,  many employers do not want to have to pay for the basic remedial education often necessary in order to provide minimal linguistic capabilities. 

An entirely different educational approach is needed, one must add, which has expectations built on input.  To be sure the drink-drug, inhibitive approach of those falsely characterised by many in Government, DOES deform education; so that either there has to be a policy to reduce this, including motivational means, or a form of education which in increasing measure avoids it, or both. Humanist has no answer, for its prejudices cause clouded thinking. Ways of handling irresponsibility can become so bucolic that the Gang of 49 syndrome may become a paradigm from the sheer monstrosity of the philosophic pampering which degrades.

To return to the article noted, there is more to find. Disadvantage is often prescribed to indigenousness, it is stated, rather than to the policies of payers in Government.  As to life expectancy, it is claimed that it is similar for indigenous and non-aboriginal people, when employed, while disease and crime, neglect and bad education bring on loss, reflected medically.

Thus do we find some apt remarks in this article, as in the speech of Pearson.

What then is to be said ? The lack is moral, as well as medical, in responsibility as well as in disease, and it is enhanced by false policies with false philosophy behind it. If something is missing in a car, the thing is to find out what it is and supply it, not call it a bicycle and keep it in the shed. Missing is expectation, education, perseverance in the same, insistence on responsibility, truth concerning the past work of missions (not all good, any more than government) and of individuals (not all good as in government), and the need to avoid laying down a humanist rule as final for aborigines, who respond as do others for whom expectations are made, to the Gospel, when it too has not been supplanted by a humanist hybrid.

If you do not EXPECT results, you insult those who are before you; if you magnify their disadvantages,  you burrow like white ants into the woodwork of their strength. If you do not pursue child rape as you would if you saw it happening beside you, why even talk of morals. It is just part of the holocaust, the most unholy holocaust of morality.



Thus we find in the following document of the UN -

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

Proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981

the following words:

Considering that it is essential to promote understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom of religion and belief and to ensure that the use of religion or belief for ends inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, other relevant instruments of the United Nations and the purposes and principles of the present Declaration is inadmissible,

Convinced that freedom of religion and belief should also contribute to the attainment of the goals of world peace, social justice and friendship among peoples and to the elimination of ideologies or practices of colonialism and racial discrimination,

Oratorically admirable as often, as is much of this, there are biting points, like hidden scorpions. RELIGION is to have USE. In this use, it is to be scarified, so that it contains nothing "inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations" and "other relevant instruments of the United Nations",  in its purposes. They are thorough, then!

Such things are "inadmissible", says this universal authority, based on nothing but votes (cf. News 19). Among these things are these: that religion should contribute to the attainment of the goals of world peace and friendship among peoples. Now while it COULD be argued that Christianity, in terms of the Bible, does in fact provide the ONLY way to world peace, and this is undoubtedly true, since without God and His unifying truth and cleansing restoration of His image in man, there MUST be dissension and division, and man without God is like a pilotless aircraft, so making history what it now increasingly obviously becomes (cf. SMR Ch. 8, where results are specified and grounds for them in biblical terms, for  example), this is not to say that the UN would like to admit this.

Certainly, there is peace and goodwill toward man (Luke 2:14), and that in the very name of God, and EVERYTHING that might be done for man has been done by the Lord (cf. John 1:1-14, Titus 2-3). Yet the goodwill brings salvation to some, which brings them peace with God and a peaceable disposition within the godless world of grab, and assuredly it is on offer to all without discrimination; and this receipt of the ransom by some, it divides. It stops the one world addiction from being fulfilled.

It is, to use the classic word of one tertiary authority who sought to silence this author in his lecturing, 'inconvenient'. When Christ is inconvenient, when demonstrable truth in teaching is inconvenient even to touch on, then the mouth can be sold or not; in this case NOT. But this is the resultant for students: the strait-jacket of silence for truth where the State's carnal rights of conquest of the soul of students is concerned. It is to be one whirled world, and small wonder many of  its leaders increasingly act as if dizzy in crisis.

With increasing obviousness and with decreasing scope for exception, this world is committed to something which as seen in this very Chapter, is contrary to the Bible. Its own absolutism makes this not merely accidental, but necessary, since just as no man  can serve two masters, so no institution laying down its ultimate laws for man, can agree with One who has laid down His own beforehand, and that,  in disjunction of all such human authority seeking to control or dispose humankind.

Hence from its viewpoint - as the one with the legal clout in the  treaties, and this has application to Australia by LAW: the Bible does not so contribute. It reveals another Master.

Christ declared for example that He did not come to bring peace but a sword (Matthew 10:34), and while John 18:36 with Matthew 26:52ff. makes it very clear that this is not a matter of force but of a division which severs from the heart: yet peace is not the ultimate, but truth in His lips. In truth, peace comes only through truth: the lie always frets (cf. I John 2:22, Isaiah 57:20-21). There is no peace, for the wicked, says Isaiah; and in the UN, the quantum leap is for peace, and the quantum omission is what is good and bad, except by its own, self-taught, unbased desire.

Households and the world are to be divided into sheep and goats (Matthew 10:34-36, 25:31ff.). To follow Him, you have to forsake all that you have (Luke 14), and of course, this includes the rule of the United Nations in its god-like posturing and commands which jar on and do not cleave to Christ. The prince of this world, Christ declares, has NOTHING in Him (John 14:30-31).

The conflict between the UN and the Bible is most apparent, and as noted, in the schools in South Australia (and not in this State only), and in many parts of the Western 'world' such as the USA, the various State authorities tend to defile, delete, disregard creationism as merely one  aspect of Biblical teaching (cf. TMR Appendix), and to teach dogmatically what departs both from empirical, logical and biblical truth (cf.  Light Dwells with the Lord's Christ who Answers Riddles, and Where He is, Darkness Departs, Deity and Design).

This shows that already this type of program, even if in some instances voiced by the UN and legally adopted, is yet also in other hearts among the nations, with their own parallel stance and attitude. Indeed, this is one reason why such documents of authoritarian confusion as these, are adopted by countries which adhere to it - as a large number do!



Thus these very provisions which are so enlarging for the child on the one hand,  are on the other, precisely those contradicted most  amply not only in a State education  Circular to Principals, long-standing (indeed for some 20 years) in South Australia, but in a vast swath of institutions of those who are in apparent conformity to the UN Declarations. The results of various assumptions about religion and science, frequently contra-factual and prone to involve hideous generalisation so incorrect as to be derisible, thus make what is touted as giving liberty, a matter of chains.

What follows is excerpted from material given in a series of meetings with South Australian Government officials, on one occasion to it. For the whole  text provided, click here.  For the background in the Circular to Principals, outlining their responsibilities in this area, click here, where substantial work and substantiation is provided.

In this, some elements are made red in this citation, in order to show some of the discriminatory elements in the education system at this point, so voiding the UN Declaration re discrimination in religion.

It is this. You have stated, according to TV report, that you believe in a free thinking South Australia. This concept is of course grossly abused in the fact that the assessment of the very nature of ‘religion’ in the Circular to Principals concerned (Creationism and the School Curriculum), is a generalisation which ignores the fact that different religions make different claims, as to their import and purport, and the nature of researchable data in them. The Circular’s error in this field is on the one hand procedural, in making such an illicit and unsustained generalisation about religions, a simple statement of its own faith; and on the other, substantial, in that lacking such evidence, its statement by implication attacks the biblical assertions concerning things such as the resurrection, the creation and the nature of history. If the Government wishes to attack Christianity in this way, fine, but it will be necessary to admit it, and to provide something in the way of grounds, and not only to abandon any thought of a free thinking South Australia, but even one of duly scholarly one, or a non-oppressive one.


Unfortunately, the answer we have received, in a way too usual in our experience in this field, did not even MENTION the issue of the religious assault; for however you may wish to present various religions, it is no part of presentation of religions to assault any without ground, by inadequate generalisation of what any of them claim. A reply omitting mention of the main feature of the question in any examination would simply fail. Worse, the confusion of the concept of religion, which is merely an aspect of one particular official and officious religious faith, in the Circular, is added to the ideas about creationism as religious only, in orientation, so as to make a confused contusion of error. This thus becomes on two counts a religious imposition, and not at all a religious coverage. The teaching discrimination involved is colossal. The student awareness of religions on such a basis is distorted.


It is precisely here that the persecution of children is occurring and of families including those of all creationists. Freedom of thought is invidiously blocked by inadequate exposure to fact, as by a tyranny of unsustained philosophy and omissions of coverage of scientific action on the part of many. Moreover, creationism is simply unfactually presented in the Circular, in its p. 1, para 1, and this actively misleads the students, if followed. It is not good to be contra-factual in educational curriculum material.


This basic point is shown in detail in material prepared for the Government in our meeting with advisers last year and which should be with you. It is however  ignored in the answer, as is also the point that creation is not only a scientific study. In terms of scientific method, as detailed in that same material, it is also shown that the basic contentions of scientific creationism are decisively and distinctively supported. Moreover, we have presented names of some 160 Ph.D. scientists who are biblical creationists (a sub-variety of the much wider body of generic creationists). Creationism is certainly, in principle, no less than evolutionism, part of the paradigm of rational science, and is far more so, since NO ONE of the criteria which, philosophy apart, are presented for empirical result, fails to meet the test in this case; whereas not one but several fail in the case of evolutionism. This summarises some of the detailed points made in the material provided.


It was put to your advisers: Are we to designate the 160 Ph.D. scientists of whom one is aware, who hold to creationism, as dunderheads – and that, for the sake of prejudice ? Is this free enquiry ? Is this rational ? Is this any answer ? Is this education, avoiding the issue ? And what of the grounds ? Are these answered by mystical statements about science, rather than the evidence, as if the word science were magic and its application to the issue systematically, were mysterious ?  If it be held in defence that a majority of scientists support one doctrine of evolution or other (many of the evolutionary doctrines compete, and attack each other through their proponents, in EMPIRICAL fact, and this not without reason!), is that of the nature of free thinking ?  Are students to think as most people think, or to examine and learn to examine, evidence ? and if not the latter, how does this differ from authoritarian educational tyranny ? and in what way does it even resemble free thinking.


In the Circular, misrepresentation of fact vies with dissemination of a specific religious Circular faith, disguised as a generalisation about religion; and both are bound by authority, in an appalling way. Is the government elected to rule religion! Let it then say so, before the next election. The Circular’s spurious definition of religion is applied pragmatically to education and so not only distorts thought and provides basis for distortion in that field.


Are we then to decline to educate our children so that they are informed and able to choose at the rational and relevant level ? or rather tell them what to think! Are they to be made selectively aware of what is philosophically preferred in the domain of science and religion, not of the actual empirical presence!


And if so, is this to be called freedom of education, or indeed of anything else ?


Dr Dmitri Kouznetsov, a holder of three bio-science doctorates and winner of the Lenin Science Prize in Russia,  is a scientist who spoke at Adelaide University some years ago. Stating that he became a creationist because of the evidence, before becoming a Christian, he deemed it wise to teach children diverse approaches in science, so that they can be educated … freely. This famous researcher is a little difficult, as are hundreds of  Ph.D. creation scientists, to dismiss as an oddity.


Further, there is a serious question whether this authoritative and inadequately rational approach to education, defining terms by desire, rather than by empirical reality, or even accuracy, is indeed legal by Commonwealth Law, in view of the formally adopted UN Declaration on intolerance in religion and belief.


It is an indisputable  fact, as far as evidence is concerned rather than mere position taking, that creationism represents a sustained and reputable scientific option, held by a multiplicity of outstanding scientists. Much further detail is available on this point, and facts are our friends. It seems also an indisputable proposition that this practical creationist aspect of scientific reality, by its omission in the field of State education IN SCIENCE, constitutes a discrimination and a deprivation for all creationists; for they or their families must either pay for those who will in fact educate them on the scope of present day science, or accept a defective version of the actual fact, which appears tilted, slanted, repressive, religiously oriented by what becomes a State religion.


Further, the current action discriminates against non-creationist students, by failing to provide them through dedicated teaching skills, with a rational aspect, according to scientific method, of the researched creationist position.  This limits their thought and research as students, and misrepresents in advance, one of its potential areas, confusing species with ‘kinds’. If now, there were some error in the presentation in detail in the materials we have provided on this general position, it would be appreciated if someone would show it decisively, instead of merely DECLINING TO DO ANYTHING RELEVANT, in word or in deed.  If the intention were to protect entrenched positions, well; but if education is intended to be a work of integrity on covering factual realities in what is taught by eminent scientists, then there is acute failure. In drawing attention to this fact, one is allowing for those who rightly insist on such precision, to make changes to ensure that it happens.


Our concern, emphatically and statedly, is not that a religious perspective be imposed on students, which would indeed be an oddity, for a secular State. It is precisely the fact that this is already BEING DONE, at which we protest, and for which we seek cleansing. Such imposition is not, nor has ever been relevant in our approach to this State; but rather the opposite,  that various perspectives be faithfully and accurately taught. However, to make ALL creationism religious only, or to make ALL religion only unscientific, these are rash and unsustained generalisation, both about religion, and about creationism: and it is to fail in this educative criterion. It becomes instead a substitution of authority for reason, opinion for evidence and ignorance of the position, for scholarship. If some prefer this, tax use should not dictate it.

The response from your Government, therefore, concerning religion and science, in essence has so far been to beg the question, a traditional trend here. The reply to us makes many assumptions; but presents no grounds.  The Government position is  then make ex-grounds, in the areas of concern: a declaration of what is to be. Now a Government CAN do this; but not rationally, freely or justly.


Since creationism, on the other hand,  has been abundantly shown to be rational and uniquely so (in the webwitness books, now 93, on this amongst other subjects, being validated in the works of many Ph.D. scientists, with a significant scientific following, as it has had over the centuries following creationists Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Boyle, Lord Kelvin, Agassiz, and in this century, von Braun, and many other well-known and innovative scientists): it merely ignores the point to talk of evolution in terms of ‘rational’ as though it had some mandate, because some hold to it. In fact, as shown in the material presented, this is not one of its aspects. It has support; but not from there. That is one reason why competing evolutionary schools engage in internecine conflict.


The reply so far received by us therefore, in effect is an exposition of the Circular to Principals, and provides no answer to the criticism of it supplied; nor as usual, evidence of the material sent having been studied. Allowing the teaching of religion is of little advantage and none as remedy to the point at issue, when its nature is abused and its place distorted. The definitional abuse of religion, in the curriculum and Circular involved, is not helped by opening doors to it.


For far more than a decade now, the issues have been drawn, the reasons given, the evidence provided, and scientific method in detail shown in its creationist outcome. The result from Government however, to the point, or any point in it, has been like the silence of the ages. If South Australia is not to be a slave State (South Australia, Slave State ?), in this regard; dictatorially dominated, educationally impoverished, segmentally oppressed, and almost certainly contrary to the Commonwealth Law into the bargain, but a State of free enquiry, then a change will need to be made in this stark and appalling avoidance of the issue.



See on materialism and its woes, including the moral, Repent or Perish Ch. 7, Swift Witness Ch. 6, and indexes including Index-Mini.


The excerpt below gives some information on the current state of the use of foreign treaties to have the force of law in Australia. They appear to move from legitimate expectation of such movement as the treaty envisages to actual legislation, with international repercussions should this not be done. This is a fait accompli feeling therefore, when such treaties, unargued in Parliament, become either virtual or actual law. In the case of the UN, the problem is of a highest order, since wholly unconstitutional agreements can be made and accepted, indeed even ratified in legislation, when normal investigative debate would have exposed without inhibition, the follies wrought for limited purposes, and for specialised desires on the part of the Executive, which cannot stand before objective review.

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v8n4/cranwell84_text.html#Need for parliamentary approval_T

The Case for Parliamentary Approval of Treaties in Australia


Author: Glen Cranwell BSc, LLB(Hons) (Qld), LLM (Melb), GDipBA (QUT)
Solicitor, Clayton Utz
Subjects: Australia -- Foreign relations -- Treaties
Australia Politics And Government
International law (Other articles)
Issue: Volume 8, Number 4 (December 2001)
Category: Comment





  1. In its decision in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh,[1] the High Court held that the executive's ratification of an international convention created a legitimate expectation that the executive government and its agencies would act in conformity with that convention. This decision has fuelled debate on Australia's current system for entering into treaties. Criticism of the present system has primarily focused on the perceived lack of public or parliamentary scrutiny of international instruments that the executive government signs and ratifies. In recent years, a number of options have been canvassed to reform the treaty-making and consultative mechanisms in Australia. These range from:



  2. The Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee conducted a review of the treaty-making power and tabled a report with a number of recommendations entitled Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth Power to Make and Implement Treaties.[3] These recommendations were aimed at improving access to information about treaties, improving consultation with the States and with non-government organisations, and improving the scrutiny of treaties by Parliament.[4]


  3. On 2 May 1996, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, announced changes to the treaty-making process that 'will provide proper and effective procedures enabling Parliament to scrutinise intended treaty action'.[5] While the government accepted many of the Committee's recommendations, it watered down the impact of the report by declining to enact the proposals in legislative form, and rejecting recommendations which involved the use of significant government resources.


  4. The Trick or Treaty? report left open the question whether legislation should be introduced to require parliamentary approval of treaties as opposed to parliamentary consideration of treaties. The Committee recommended 'that the issue of what legislation, if any, should be introduced to require the Parliamentary approval of treaties be referred to the proposed Treaty Committee for further investigation and consideration'.[6]


  5. In response, the government also stated that: The Government considers that it would be sensible to review the experience to be gained from the establishment of a Joint Committee and the implementation of other recommendations before moving to consider the need for an approval or disallowance procedure. Accordingly, the Government will review the initiatives taken to reform the treaty-making process after two years. It will give consideration at that time to whether the issue of an approval procedure should be referred to the new Treaties Committee.[7]


  6. The Department of Foreign Affairs has recently conducted a review of the treaty reforms to consider, among other things, whether there should be a procedure for the parliamentary approval of treaties. The report, published in August 1999, concluded that the reforms are operating well and there is no need for further changes.[8]

    Need for parliamentary approval


  7. There are two major deficiencies in the system as it currently operates. The first relates to what is perceived to be the excessive power of the executive in the field of foreign affairs. The concern is that the practice, whereby treaties were entered into by the executive without significant parliamentary involvement, is 'undemocratic', as treaties can have a range of significant effects on the Australian legal and administrative systems; the Australian economy and indeed the way Australians live.


  8. Parliamentary approval of legislation which implements treaties is not a satisfactory form of accountability. Even when treaties are not implemented by legislation, they may still have domestic consequences. Treaties can affect the interpretation of law, by being used to resolve ambiguities in legislation or gaps in the common law. They are considered by the courts to be a legitimate source of influence on the development of the common law, and may be the source of a 'legitimate expectation' under administrative law, that government officials will comply with the treaty when making administrative decisions which affect the rights of people.[9]


  9. Nor is adequate accountability ensured by Australia's practice of not ratifying a treaty unless its legislation already complies with the treaty. That practice is not always followed.[10] It is in any case an inadequate safeguard: Australia may be bound by subsequent amendments to the treaty or interpretations of the treaty inconsistent with Australia's understanding of the treaty when it ratified it.


  10. Even the decision made by the executive to enter into a treaty may not be subject to sufficient scrutiny by the executive itself. Senator Evans recently described the current ratification process, stating that: It is a matter of relevant ministerial approval followed by Executive Council determination. It invariably involves the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and such other subject ministers as are associated with that particular issue ... On occasions there may be a formal Cabinet decision, but far more often than not it is dealt with at the ministerial level, but with formal ratification being a matter for Executive Council approval.[11]


  11. Information provided to the Senate Estimates Committee A in May 1994 stated that 49 agreements had received Cabinet approval for final consent since 1990, as opposed to 186 which had been approved by relevant Ministers. The criticism can be made that procedures should be in place so that important national issues dealt with by treaties should at least be subject to systematic scrutiny.


  12. Adequate accountability is also desirable from the standpoint of international law. Conflict over the domestic treaties process may undermine the legitimacy of international law itself in Australia, and result in a lack of public support for treaties and their results.[12]


  13. The second problem with the current system is that Parliament is involved only after there is an internationally binding treaty, and is very often placed in a position where failure to pass proposed legislation will violate a treaty, leaving Australia internationally responsible. Parliaments may have little effective choice but to enact implementing legislation once an international commitment is made. In The Parlement Belge, Robert Phillimore quoted Kent's views, in 1873, that it is 'morally obligatory upon the legislature to pass the law, and to refuse it would be a breach of public faith'.[13]