THIS chapter sets forth details of some of the
advertising material sent forth in support of Russell’s election
campaign. This will provide a small insight into his policy. His media
release follows.
A Candidate with a Difference
Mt. Dandenong resident, Dr Russell Standish, has
nominated as a candidate for election to the Constitutional Convention
which will convene February 2–13, 1998. Dr Standish is a candidate with
a difference. While most nominees are standing on a platform of either:
1. Support for the establishment of a Republic, or
2. Support for the retention of Queen Elizabeth II as
titular head of state,
Standish sees neither of these positions as central to
the constitutional debate:
"The matter concerning the issues of a Republican
or a Monarchist Constitution is not the crucial issue in the present
debate," Standish asserts. "The central issue is the
Constitution itself."
He poses a question which he considers worthy of close
consideration:
"Is Australia’s present state of politics and
society as a whole, conducive to wise and considered deliberation on the
matter of the formulation of a new Constitution, one which will protect
the civil and religious freedoms of our nation, which we covet so
assiduously?"
Standish does not think so.
A graduate with a major in Modern History, including
the History of Australia, from the University of Sydney and a First Class
Honours Degree in Educational Psychology, Standish has carefully studied
the moves to Federation and the Constitutional Conventions held a century
ago. He concludes that the political atmosphere and the state of society
then, stood in stark contrast to that of today. He quotes a conclusion
drawn from the book Slouching Towards Gomorrah? written by Robert
Bork, former United States Solicitor-General and U. S. Supreme Court
Justice nominee. Bork states in his book:
"We must take seriously the possibility that
perhaps nothing will be done to reverse the direction of our culture, that
the degeneracy we see about us will only become worse."
Standish believes this statement could well apply also
to Australia at the end of the twentieth century. Social standards of the
citizens of our nation and of the politicians who rule us have
demonstrated a serious decline in the last one hundred years. It is
exceedingly doubtful, Standish believes, that the wisdom and clear
insights into the preservation of the welfare and the protection of the
freedoms of each individual citizen, so evident in our present
Constitution, will dominate the thinking of those who would be entrusted
to frame a new Constitution. In today’s climate of ill-considered
change, uncertainty of social standards, and social decline, we could
rather expect the inclusion of measures poorly constructed to protect our
future. The Clemenger Report found that:
"Australians are deeply concerned about the pace
of change in their society. They feel changes are random and
uncontrollable."
Standish concludes that such an absence of a clear
national identity and course, and the present volatility of public
opinion, contrasts markedly from the 1890s where stability was the
watchword of the day. Thus, this is not the moment in our history to forge
a change in an element of our lives as significant as the Commonwealth
Constitution, for none can predict how the final outcome will impact upon
each Australian’s life and the lives of future generations. What we do
know is that the 1901 Constitution with its 96-year-long track record is
serving us well, very well indeed! It is time, long overdue, for
Australians to rise up and defend its continuity.
When questioned about the prospect of a
"minimalist" constitutional alteration, simply exchanging a
President for a Governor-General, Standish points out that the very
structure of the 1901 Constitution will not permit such a simplistic
approach. For a new Constitution along these lines to make sense, deeper
alterations than these are mandatory. Further, Standish suspects that once
the Constitution is opened up for major review, many politicians and
Constitutional activists and members of the judiciary will find it
impelling to endeavour to have their own agendas inserted into the
articles of the Constitution. He believes that it is time to make the
Constitution itself the central issue, and not the political debate of the
Republic versus the Monarchy.
Apart from our indigenous peoples, all of us are either
migrants, or descendants of migrants who entered this country less than
210 years ago. Those who came to settle as part of our nation following
the conclusion of hostilities after the Second World War, chose Australia
because of the unusual freedom of life which it affords us. Our
unobtrusive Constitution is so beneficial to our well-being that its
details are seldom considered. This, in itself, is a powerful testimony,
Standish believes, to its wise and citizen-friendly principles.
Standish is a sixth generation Australian with a
passionate love for Australia. His British ancestors (English, Irish, and
Scottish) arrived in Australia in 1844, and his 25 per cent German
ancestors settled in the Barossa Valley in 1849. Dr. Standish himself is
both a consultant physician and a clergyman. He graduated as a physician
from Sydney University in 1964 and pursued specialist studies in London
and the Royal Berkshire Hospital in England, obtaining his membership of
the Royal College of Physicians of the United Kingdom in 1970. He was
elevated to the Fellowship of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburg
in 1983, and to that of Glasgow the following year. He held the post of
Deputy Medical Superintendent of the Austin Hospital, Melbourne, 1975–78,
and for a number of years in the 1980s, conducted a specialist practice in
Harley Street, London. Dr. Standish also spent twenty years in Medical
Mission Service in Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore). He
also holds the Theological Normal Diploma of the Australasian Missionary
College. With his identical twin brother, Dr. Colin Standish, M.A.(Hons),
M.Ed., Ph.D. (Sydney University), President of Hartland Institute,
Virginia, U.S.A., Russell Standish has authored twenty-three books, and
four others are presently in preparation. These books cover a very wide
spectrum of subjects including Education, Religion, Prophecy, History,
Psychological Counselling, Cosmology and Biological Science, Religious
& Civil Liberty, Natural Law, and Autobiography. The books authored by
the Standishes have been published worldwide. Together they have lectured
on all inhabited continents.
Russell Standish’s election statement, confined by
regulation to fifty words, will appear in the Candidates’ Statement
booklet which will be posted along with ballot papers to all Victorian
electors between Nov. 3–14. Ballot papers have to be returned by Free
Post to the Commonwealth Electoral Office, Melbourne, by December 9.
Standish’s election statement reads:
OUR CONSTITUTION IS SERVING US WELL
Our constitution, which is serving us well, will be
jeopardized. Today’s atmosphere of political dishonesty and social
breakdown warns that presently any constitutional alteration is unsafe. I,
a consultant physician, historian, author, clergyman, international
lecturer, student of the constitution, offer an informed voice
representing citizen freedom.
Keep our constitution safe!
We present two extracts from the advertisements placed
on behalf of Russell’s candidature.
It is time to put aside the emotional arguments
surrounding the Monarchist vs the Republican issue—
OUR CONSTITUTION
IS AT STAKE
Dr. Standish understands and shares the gratitude and
nostalgia of the Monarchists. Similarly, he shares the patriotism of the
Republicans. But the central issue of the present Constitutional debate is
THE CONSTITUTION itself.
It is time to put aside the emotional arguments
surrounding the Monarchist vs the Republican issue.
What Victorians require at the Constitutional
Convention, are representatives who have studied the Constitution together
with the political and social climate of today.
THERE CANNOT BE A "MINIMALIST" ALTERATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION in order to simply delete the post of Governor-General,
and replace it with the post of President. Any student of the Constitution
will discover that no less than seventeen Articles of the Constitution
provide prerogatives for the Monarch quite separate from those of the
Governor-General. The Monarch, for example, is a designated part of the
three most powerful arms of any nation—the Legislative, Executive, and
Judicial functions. Further, the Monarch is the titular head of our
Defence Forces and has the right to annul any law enacted by Parliament.
The Monarchy has a long track record of restraint in
exerting these powers. But could we feel secure that an ambitious
President would show similar restraint? Are we ready to imperil our
freedoms and trust in an appointed or elected figure? All these matters
must be seriously considered and would inevitably lead to a major
reconstruction of our Constitution. Senator Robert Ray, senior Labor Party
broker, was absolutely correct when he asserted:
"The minimalist position—Mr Keating’s 1995
view that only minimal changes to the Constitution was needed, and would
be accepted by the community to transform Australia into a republic—was
deeply flawed." (The Australian, Oct. 9 1997)
Victorians must preserve our Constitution, it is
serving us well. The fact that the vast majority of Victorians do not
recall a single one of the 128 Articles of our Constitution is proof of
its effectiveness and power. If our liberties and way of life were
restricted by our constitution, we would well know these Articles causing
us such serious deprivations.
This is not the time to undertake a major
reconstruction of our Constitution, which continues to serve us so well. A
century ago, when our present Constitution was established, political and
social conditions were quite different from today. Is Australia’s
present state of politics and society as a whole, conducive to wise and
considered deliberation on the matter of formulation of a new
Constitution, one which will protect the civil, social, and religious
freedoms of our nation, which we covet so assiduously? Are our politicians
honest? Do they place the good of the nation before their personal
advantage? Is society at this time stable and considered in its
deliberations? The Clemenger Report in the late 1980s found that,
"Australians are deeply concerned about the pace
of change in society. They feel changes are random and uncontrollable."
(emphasis added)
The report identified "AIDS, crime, family
breakdown, and community fragmentation" as the crucial issues
destabilizing Australian society today.
Thus, now is not the time to alter our tried and
trusted constitution, which has—
