The Republic will cause over 60 alterations to our excellent Constitution including 16 entire Sections being repealed (removed), and all this without an item specific (individual) referendum being conducted, the referendum on 6 November is a blanket referendum that mentions NONE of these alterations in any detail whatsoever. Its a case of mess it up today, and maybe fix it later, a gung-ho crash program that is absolutely unconstitutional. The implied meaning of Section 128 (referendum) is that each and every individual alteration must be presented to the people, clearly and in full so that the people can make an informed decision and vote with full knowledge of the issues involved.

What about a President who cannot administrate, who is totally reliant upon the Prime Minister for his continuing existence, the Prime Minister can dismiss the President instantly, and within seconds, there is no President.

The selection process for appointing the President gives the Prime Minister absolute power to ensure that we get a lame duck yes man who will do exactly as he is told to do, no more and no less.

Mr Howards so called "preamble" is a disaster of proportions never before experienced in the history of Australia. The latest indications are that this preamble is to be inserted into the Constitution immediately AFTER the heading, if this is so, then it is clearly NOT A PREAMBLE , Constitutional Law is very clear on this rule. A Preamble is a PRE, which means BEFORE the Constitution begins, which means before the Title of the Constitution.

There are very serious problems with the preamble, that's not a preamble, because it's located (deliberately) AFTER the heading. This location makes it a CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION which is ABSOLUTELY BINDING upon the people of Australia. As most people will realize the Constitution is the Supreme Law of Australia, whatever it says is the law and must be obeyed by all people, including Parliamentarians.

The preamble, thats not a preamble, refers to aboriginals, and I quote in part, quote "honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nations first people, for their deep kinship with their lands" end quote, note the words NATIONS FIRST PEOPLE and THEIR LANDS , these words in the Constitution are a Title Deed to take away your Crown Freehold or Crown Leasehold Title, which of course means your home or farm is open to claim by any person who says they are Aboriginal.

Furthermore the Republic will destroy the Crown, and the High Court has already stated that if the Crown should go then all land returns to "Commonlaw Native Title".   [The statement that all land returns to Native Commonlaw Title was made by (Judge) C.J.Brennan in the case WIK v/s QLD 141ALR129 at 155.]

Therefore it is imperitive to vote NO twice, NO to the Republic and NO to the new preamble, thats not a preamble.

The next bit of misleading trickery is the new Section 125A that is to be inserted, I Quote"The preamble to this Constitution has no legal force and shall not be considered in interpreting this Constitution or the law in force in the Commonwealth or any part of the Commonwealth" end quote.   Now this new Section 125A raises a number of problems, as follows;

1/ Which preamble are they referring to, the real already existing Preamble, or the new preamble thats not a preamble, it appears the real Preamble is the only possibility, as it is the ONLY Preamble.

2/ Apart from the extremely serious results of destroying the real (only) Preamble, which I will not go into just now due to shortage of space, it is not LEGALLY possible for them to touch our real (only) Preamble, and in law any attempt is automatically invalid, it is up to YOU people to ENFORCE this fact of law, the law cannot enforce itself, if this is not enforced then ALL will suffer the consequence of the illegal result, which will surely be an illegal republic of despotic tyranny.

3/ A Constitutional Provision, which we have already decided is the Supreme Law of Australia and cannot be over-ridden by anybody,or anything, how can this Constitutional Provision be declared to have "no legal force" etc., this is the most incredible situation of impossibility.   At the front the new Constitution says one thing, and at the end it contradicts the front, which provision has the power?

Finally I note the ABSENCE of reference to ALMIGHTY God, yes the word God is there, God by itself can mean anything that a person may worship, including money or the computer, or even, ALMIGHTY GOD forbid, the Prime Minister.