Category Archives: malcolm turnbull
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
The next NATs’ Party meeting could set Australia back on track by deciding to reverse what Turnbull tried to do to them. Turnbull made no secret of the fact he was trying to get the NATs to sack Barnaby. Well, that’s heresy and guess what, as I have been saying from day one, Barnaby is going nowhere, it’s Turnbull who should be worried.
A deputation of NATs should now go to Turnbull’s office and demand he step down or the NATs will rip up the coalition agreement and leave the Libs to wallow diseased and deceased.
So, at the next joint Party meeting, the proposition should be put to the entire Liberal Party where many would be quite excited by the idea.
The NATs, in the meantime, will have had meetings with Bernardi and all other Right of Centre Parties and Independents, who I believe would break their necks to preference the NATs at the next election but not the Libs.
Turnbull support diminished and still shrinking
There would no doubt be Liberal Party defections as it became clear that this NAT coalition would stop Shorten dead in his tracks and the Liberal Party would effectively become defunct, never to rule again.
Those who always voted Liberal will also naturally preference the NATs. The Liberal Party deserves to die for allowing Turnbull to capitulate to his Lefty Labor mates, deserting the Menzies centrist doctrine.
The combination would see the NATs as the senior conservative Party in Government as it already holds 21 seats in the Parliament. The three-corner election deals would be scrapped and the NATs could field and win with candidates in seats, where it formerly could not.
This would give Aussie voters what they crave… a clear choice between socialist and conservative and if you add to that Shorten’s appalling popularity figures it would be impossible for even Graham Richardson to predict a Labor/Green win.
The NATs would undoubtedly win between 35 and 40 seats, most at the expense of the Liberals, but it would be the NATs, combined with a diminished Liberal Party, who would be able to convince the GG that they could easily form government as one Party.
The Liberals would then have to agree to a One-Party Conservative Coalition where grubby Lefty wastrels like Bishop, Payne, Frydenberg, Hunt and Pyne etc would no longer run the joint and they would have to toe the line as they did before Turnbull assassinated Abbott.
A One-Party Coalition Government would likely elect Dutton as PM and retain Joyce as his Deputy.
Now Australia could have an honest Conservative Government that will kill off the ABC and Fraser’s SBS, dump the Paris accord, start re-mining coal, get energy costs back to normal, ban RETs, develop the north, start on nuclear power, halve immigration, combine and halve our security agencies, decimate the corrupt and bloated SCSIRO, ban immigration from known terrorist nations, reduce QUANGOs by 75%, reduce all Departmental budgets by 10%, reduce the Public Service by 5,000, cap their salaries, allow the States to collect and spend their own GST, stop ‘nominated’ Aboriginal status, reform the judiciaries, Reform the Senate, force States to reform the Family Court and the CSA, stop Islamic welfare rorts, tell the Islamic dominated UN to go root its boot, ban deficit spending, rip up 20,000 regulations, cull crocodiles and bats and at the next election include a fair dinkum referendum on restoring a trashed Marriage Act. (You can look forward to a much different result than the last Green inspired dodgy one.)
Okay so I might have my hand on it but really, Turnbull must go, and the only people with the testicular fortitude to make that happen are the NATs.
Larry Pickering at his best
How many people know there is a ‘Bill of Rights’ bill sitting on the table in the House of Representatives in Canberra which already has survived a first reading.
It is called the Bill of Rights Act, 2017, tabled by Tasmania Independent MP, Andrew Wilkie.
According to Mr Wilkie it is a bill for an Act relating to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Australians and all people in Australia, and for related purposes.
This bill paves the way, setting the framework for Turnbull’s republic.
Mr Wilkie is obviously unaware we already have the inalienable Bill of Rights 1688, which cannot be altered by any parliament.
“If you were not worried before you need to be very concerned now”
The objects of this Act are:
15 (a) to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human
16 rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons without
17 discrimination; and
18 (b) to that end, to enact an Australian Bill of Rights giving effect
19 to certain provisions of:
20 (i) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
21 done at New York on 16 December 1966; and
22 (ii) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
23 Cultural Rights done at New York on 16 December
24 1966; and
25 (iii) the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New
26 York on 20 November 1989;
27 being guided by:
28 (iv) the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded
29 Persons; and
1 (v) the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons; and
2 (vi) the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
3 Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or
4 Belief; and
5 (c) to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as set out
6 in the Australian Bill of Rights are infringed by or under any
7 law in relation to which that Bill of Rights operates has an
8 effective remedy; and
9 (d) to promote, enhance and secure, as paramount objectives, the
10 freedom and dignity of the human person, equality of
11 opportunity for all persons and full and free participation by
12 all Australians in public affairs and public debate.
Submissions called to investigate the unlawful removal of Senator Rod Culleton from the senate earlier this year.
What really happened? Why did the Attorney General Liberal George Brandis, intentionally mislead the senate about Culleton and how did the Senate President Stephen Parry(former Port Arthur undertaker) remove Culleton without a motion of the senate? Section 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia says only the senate can rule on the eligibility of a senator.
Brandis is hightailing it to London as the new High Commissioner. He will no doubt be called to give evidence. He has a problem.
‘On 6 December 2017, the Senate resolved that the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by 6 February 2018:
The implications of recent decisions by the Court of Disputed Returns concerning section 44 of the Constitution on questions referred by the Parliament under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, with particular reference to:
(a) the decisions in connection with the disqualification of former Senators Bob Day and Rodney Culleton;
(b) a regime for disclosing information relating to aspects other than section 44(i), for which the Parliament has already provided;
(c) the form such a process might take and how it could be implemented; and
(d) any related matters.’
Committee Secretariat contact:
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
PO Box 6021
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 2374
Fax: +61 2 6277 4773
Letter to the Editor
Turnbull confirms Australia a part of the New World Order on a Current Affair
Come on people wake up. Turnbull is Prime Minister of the Political Parties Australia created in 1973 by and for the Political Parties = TREASON.
The Political Parties own the Justices of this High Court of Australia created by and for the Political Parties since 1979.
The Political Parties owned private Justices are telling us
Chief Justice French in his speech “The Judicial Function in an Age of Statutes
“As with the common law, there are statutes in which broad terms are used which are capable of application to a wide range of fact situations. Where that is so, it means that Parliament has left the courts to work out the appropriate application of the statute on a case-by-case basis. A new kind of common law evolves derived from many decisions applying the same broad statutory language.” = TREASON
Re Wakim  HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
KIRBY J. : “ A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitution power where none exists. ” = TREASON
Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) HCA 24 (12 September 1996)
DAWSON J. : “ It may be observed that a legislature wishing to enact a statute ordering that all blue-eyed babies be killed would hardly be perturbed by a principle of law which purported to deny it that power. ” DAWSON is telling us that this Australian Government and its Parliament of Australia is a TOTAL DICTATORSHIP. = TREASON
Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth  HCA 38 (14 August 1997)
KIRBY J. : “ One highly influential international statement on the understand of universal and fundamental rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document is NOT a treaty to which Australia is a party. Indeed it is not a treaty at all. It is not part of Australia’s domestic law, still less of its Constitution. ”
Australia is a party
Australia’s domestic law
its Constitution.= Australian Constitution. The word Australia is UNDER the Political Parties definition of Australia created by and for the Political Parties in 1973 = TREASON
These so called judges are telling us that the Australian Government its Parliament of Australia, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) are NOT acting UNDER the Founding and Primary Law, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted = TREASON
The Political Parties removed the Common Law of England in 1988 = TREASON
The Political Parties each under their own Party’s Constitution and policies are a TOTAL DICTATORSHIP = TREASON
OUR “Common Law of England” is entrenched in Clause 5 of the Founding and Primary Law, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted
The Political Parties Australia is NOT the Australia as established UNDER the Founding and Primary Law Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted.
The Political Parties Australian Constitution doesn’t recognize the Preamble and the first six Clauses = NO people, NO God, NO Her Most Excellent Majesty, NO Crown of the United Kingdom, NO Short Title, NO Act to extend to the Queen’s successors, NO Proclamation of Commonwealth, NO Commencement of Act, NO Operation of the Constitution and laws, NO Definitions.
The Political Parties Australia Constitution is UNDER The Australia Act 1986 = TREASON.
Manus Island violence, sexual assault and regular bashings of staff by inmates
by Alanah Robinson, whose husband worked at the centre
My previous Facebook post has been taken down. I find it interesting that it has seemingly breeched FB community standards for attacking someone’s race or ethnicity when not once did I do that. Apparently, it’s not OK to criticise violent behaviour. I would like to point out that I immigrated here from a Muslim majority country, I’m not white and spent many years in PNG.
Due to the recent spike in publicity surrounding the Manus Regional Processing Centre, I feel that I must speak up. First of all, whether or not I think that the men in the centre are refugees, asylum seekers, illegal immigrants or little green men from Mars is irrelevant to what I am about to share:
For some time my husband worked at the centre. He, his former work colleagues, local staff, female and male were subjected to violent assaults and even assaults of a sexual nature on a daily basis; with my husband having been assaulted DOZENS of times.
The staff there were spat at, some being knocked unconscious and beaten whilst incapacitated, another was struck from behind with a metal bar (being partially scalped from the attack), chairs, rocks and poles were all used as weapons against the staff which, included females. There was even a recent incident of a female doctor surviving a strangulation attempt; these are just some of the hundreds of examples…..
There have also been numerous incidents involving the local populace, including children that have had physical attempts of a sexual nature made against them, by men staying in the centre. Despite what some elements within the media and politics would have you believe, they were able to leave and access places outside the centre, including beaches, villages and towns. Further to this almost one thousand of these men have elected to return home to their country of origin. Some of those who chose to remain on the island had to be escorted when leaving the centre as they had been identified as being high risk repeat sexual offenders… LET THAT SINK IN FOR A MINUTE…. This group of men have been caught using lollies and chocolates in an attempt to lure young children into their accommodation, for purposes I would shudder to imagine, with one of these men being recently charged for the sexual assault of a ten year old child.
The men at this centre have been coached by advocates in Australia on how to cultivate an image of who they are, and of their conditions that would best serve their political aims in Australia and abroad. They have for years now deliberately provoked the local population, routinely making threats, throwing rocks and defaming the local culture, race and the PNG nation itself. This type of deliberate and concerted behaviour has naturally elicited a reaction from the people of Manus Island and has helped to achieve the (false) narrative that Manus Island was an unsafe place to live.
My heart is breaking for the Manus Island people, as it is for every staff member, many of whom are Australian and New Zealand citizens that have had to endure sustained verbal and physical abuse.
After hearing so many first-hand accounts, I am grateful for the mental and moral resilience of the men and women who have been tasked with the difficult job of maintaining order within the centre, and hope that they have not suffered in their mental health at having to witness such depravity by these perpetrators.
Knowing now what I do, I could hardly care less about the “plight” of these rapefugees, where they have come from, their culture or religion – my thoughts are only for the people of Manus Island and Australia.
I find it interesting that here in Australia many women leading the protests – determined to put pressure on the government to bring these low life’s here…..why is that? Why are these particular women making excuses for the violence against fellow citizens and ignoring the sexual assault of CHILDREN?!
The men there, in collusion with advocates from Australia, created a Facebook page (thankfully now removed) dedicated to finding out and posting the addresses of staff members’ family homes here in Australia (after viewing this page I was deeply disturbed by its content and its implications). The page contained images, locations and was threatening in nature. With this in mind the expatriate and local population in addition to the staff, all had threats made against their families (wives, girlfriends, parents and children) of a graphic, sexual nature…
So if you are a person who has a good heart and has been deceived into having sympathy for these young men and seek to bring them to Australia, I implore you to make decisions based not on emotion but on the raw tactile situation and make these decisions with your head. We are lucky to live in a safe country – lets keep it that way!
There is deep seated misogyny, violence and an often paedophilic nature that permeates their culture which is at odds with our values, that which we try to uphold, as Australians. We cannot hold them to a standard which they themselves have no desire to be a part of. We are also lucky to live in a country that allows for different ideas and opinions, but in the name of self-preservation, for the sake of ALL our families and children; if you are seeking to import these men, then your right to an opinion is directly endangering the public (particularly the families – myself included) should your ideals be reached.
Minister Cormann refuses to answer questions regarding the security of the postal ballot
by Lex Stewart, President of Vote Australia
Possibly, Yes. Massive frauds cannot be ruled out yet.
It might be that the officers of the ABS (with staff seconded from the AEC) have conducted the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey in an honest and accurate manner, so that the Australian public can trust the result.
However it is also possible that massive frauds have been conducted, and that the true result could have been 60% no, and 40% yes.
We do not yet have sufficient information to rule out the possibility that the AMLPS result was massively frauded.
Over the period 26 September to 8 November I asked about 30 questions of the ABS and of the Minister Cormann.
In the absence of answers at this stage, it is impossible to verify the accuracy and integrity of what happened in the AMLPS.
I say this from my perspectives both as President of Vote Australia, and as a Consultant Engineer who does Audits of factories and farms for Workplace Health and Safety and for Food Safety, issuing ‘HACCP’ compliance certificates.
It is almost meaningless if I inspect a factory and find that the food being produced is free of contamination, or that nobody was killed or injured on that day.
It is not just what happens when I am present in a factory or farm that matters. There needs to be in place a robust “quality assurance” program, with transparency and accountability.
Before I can issue a compliance certificate, I need to check the management, methods, training, etc to make sure that hazards have been assessed and that procedures are in place to ensure food safety or human safety for the other 364 days of the year.
The lack of evidence of a robust “quality assurance” program and procedures in the ABS is alarming.
Based on the somewhat limited information to hand so far:
- Website www.abs.gov.au, notably the two sections with titles:- “Quality & Integrity Statement” and “External Observers”
- The “Fraud Control Plan and fraud control measures”and its related ‘comprehensive risk assessment’ mentioned on www.abs.gov.au have not been made public
- And this plan and assessment seem not to have been audited by independent experts
- Unsatisfactory answers by the ABS to some of my 9 questions of 26 September
- Lack of answers by the ABS to my questions numbered 10 to 22 of 7 and 8 November
- Lack of answers by the Minister’s office to my 8 questions numbered A to G
- Apparent anomalies in the mathematical patterns of votes
- The refusal by Protoviti, the auditor engaged by the ABS, to answer my questions
- The ABS not making public the Protoviti reports (likely they have done excellent work, but only within the scope of the ‘terms of reference’ set for them by the ABS)
- The strange phenomenon that Protoviti employees were forced to sign a “non-disclosure” agreement – the sort of thing only relevant to matters of defence and commercial competitiveness re tenders etc
- The lack of any publicly-available knowledge as to whether the ‘terms of reference’ (i.e. the scope of activities that Protoviti was asked to address) were adequate or had been set too restrictively by the ABS
- The inherent possibility that ABS computers could have been ‘hacked’ unless the “cyber security controls including extensive use of data encryption” were of a higher standard than that which normally prevails in Canberra public service agencies
Banks order the Member for Goldman Sachs, Mal Turnbull to knock up an inquiry for which they will provide the terms of reference
30 November 2017: KAP Federal Member for Kennedy Bob Katter today applauded the Turnbull Government’s endorsement of a Royal Commission into the banks, but warns that whilst this battle is won, the war will continue should the Government opt to uphold a 12 month review period and construct the review board from those within the finance industry.
Mr Katter, who was the first Member of Parliament to call for a Royal Commission into the banks in May 2015 and who introduced legislation in the Parliament earlier this year, labelled today’s announcement as ‘a great victory of the people of Australia’.
“This is a great victory for the ordinary Australians. Today my fellow Australians we have won. We have proved that we can win. The Government has been resistant almost to a point of bringing down their own Government against having a Royal Commission into the banks.
“Resistant to a point where the people had a great stroke of luck and the Liberal Party was one down in the Parliament and since they were one vote down, we could cease control of the Parliament and get through the Royal Commission into the banks.
“But the victory lies with those people that did not cop if from the banks but stood up and fought and fought and fought, and with the meagre resources they had they went into the courts and got slaughtered, constantly coming to people like myself and the crossbench – together were able to get the victory today”
“I had the very great honour of having drafted the legislation in conjunction with George Christensen; just two ordinary Australians. The leader of the Government is a banker and unfortunately for him, from Goldman Sachs whose history is checkered.
“This is where the second ball game arises. The Government only acted at the request of the banks. They ignored the majority of the Parliament, they ignored the majority (I suspect) of their own Party and they most certainly treated with contempt the view of the people of Australia. They only acted when they got their writing instructions from the banks and that is a terrible indictment of the Government.”
Mr Katter said that the substance behind the Royal Commission will come down to the composition of terms of reference of the inquiry and said that appointments to the Commission should be approved by the Parliament.
“We put in our legislation, that there will be three judges and three people from the community. We don’t want Caesar judging Caesar. We don’t want just anyone from the financial sector. On our list of names, we suggested Oliver Yates who has a banking background but has proved again and again what he thinks is the right thing and not just what the banks say is the right thing to do. These are the sort of people the people of Australia would trust to do the right thing.
“To my fellow Australians I say this; you have risen up, not given in and fought, you never gave up and you never gave in. You kept out there fighting and fighting. But I warn you, the man from Goldman Sachs is not going to be giving you the inquiry that you want.”
by Leonard William
Exposing the lies of GEORGE HENRY BRANDIS, JOSHUA ANTHONY FRYDENBERG and MALCOLM BLIGH TURNBULL.
It makes me quite angry to see the shenanigans being carried out by the liars that infest OUR parliaments, namely the fe’ral parliament in Canberra.
GEORGE HENRY BRANDIS is a German citizen or at least is ENTITLED to the rights and privileges of a German citizen. The point being missed by all and sundry is that Section 44 of OUR constitution is THE paramount law of OUR land and is not there for anybody to breach and that it does not just mean being under acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power, but being otherwise ENTITLED to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power. Ergo, being entitled to a passport of a foreign power prohibits any person sitting in OUR fe’ral parliament.
BRANDIS IS A LIAR AND NOT ELIGIBLE TO SIT IN OUR PARLIAMENT.
The bedwetting snowflakes and job protectionists who whinge and whine saying that we should forget the problem and get on with more important things, and this includes many radio talk-back hosts do not understand there are no more important things than getting the liars, manipulators and connivers out of OUR parliament now. It is not a difficult thing to ascertain who is and who is not eligible.
It is the job of the Governor-General and the Australian Federal Police to sort out the mess, not the parliament.
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth; or
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty‑five persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
But subsection (iv) does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension, by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth. Editor: Please note the Governor General according to the Constitution is still paid in pounds, shillings and pence.