Blog Archives

ScoMo and Turnbull endorse attempted theft of US election by Biden crime family

Rudi Giuliani announces the legal challenge to Pennsylvania’s vote rigging on Saturday.

THE heist of the US election by the deep state Biden crime family has gone into overdrive with Biden’s Democratic Party and the global media screaming “Biden won!” after he allegedly passed his 270 Electoral College votes needed to be president.

But Biden has not won. He is merely the apparent president-elect of a now legally disputed election fraught with violations of fair and open voting procedures.

And Australia’s Coalition government has endorsed the coup with PM Scott Morrison and his former boss Malcolm Turnbull congratulating Biden. Morrison took it even further, inviting Biden and his far-left radical running mate Kamala Harris to visit Australia.

President Trump’s closest southern neighbor, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said on Saturday he would not congratulate a winner in the U.S. presidential election until all legal challenges are decided. “With regard to the U.S. election, we are going to wait until all the legal matters have been resolved,” John Solomon’s Just the News reported the Mexican president as saying. But not PM ScoMo and his former boss Malcolm Turnbull.

Malcolm Turnbull Twitter post praising Joe Biden. ScoMo praised Biden too in a post-election speech.

The PM and his party apparatus could have chosen to hold back on full endorsement of Biden, but instead offered him and Harris a full, warm welcome to office in a detailed speech praising Biden’s alleged “deep understanding … of the national security issues that confront not only the United States but those more broadly across the world and a deep personal understanding, obviously, with his son Beau having served in Iraq.”

“But you may not know,” the PM continued “that president-elect Biden had two uncles that served in New Guinea during the Second World War, one of whom, was killed in New Guinea, and another who was seriously injured. So the relationship goes deep and is personal.”

And as if to drive home his support of “The Big Guy” named in Hunter Biden’s emails between him and his business partners, Morrison went on to invited Biden to next year’s 70th anniversary of the ANZUS treaty celebrations.
Biden’s alleged election meanwhile, is being called by Steve Bannon and others America’s “Colour Revolution”, that is the a highly-sophisticated psychological warfare operations used by the US and its allies to topple unfavourable Eastern European and Middle Eastern leaders.

In the case of America, its Colour Revolution has been combined with outright voting fraud that is being exposed across the nation, like the 5500-vote “glitch” in the Michigan county that flipped 6000 votes away from Donald Trump. The county secretary later tried to explain it away as a human error. But as noted by President Trump, the same software was used across the nation. Attorney Sidney Powell told Lou Dobbs on Fox Business there was a likelihood that 3% of early votes received digitally were through the “Hammer” and “Scorecard” programs used by the intelligence agencies.

“In addition they ran an algorithm to calculate votes they might need to come up with for Mr Biden in specific areas. I think that explains what happened in Michigan where the computer glitch resulted in a change of votes of about 5500 in favour of President Trump just in one of 47 districts. All those districts need to be checked for the quote software glitch end quote, that would change the result in Michigan dramatically.

“The same thing is happening in other states. We’ve had 100s of thousands of ballots mysteriously appear for solely Mr Biden, which is statistically impossible as a matter of mathematics. It can all be documented. We are putting it into materials that we will file in Federal Court and we will need to seek relief in multiple states to enjoin the certification of any election results.”

The screaming, champagne cork popping and dancing, started almost at the very moment that Trump’s personal attorney Rudi Giuliani announced his lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania for repeatedly denying access to vote counting and scrutiny of ballots by Republican Party delegates. And the media, including Australia’s Nine Network, the ABC and others, continued to repeat the lie that claims of election fraud were “false” or “unfounded”.

Morrison simply played along with this as did Turnbull who posted on Twitter he was “relieved” by the result. Turnbull’s opposition to Trump has barely been hidden, while Morrison has yet to reveal where he actually stands. UK PM Boris Johnson also congratulated Biden on his fake “projected win”.

At Giuliani’s Philadelphia press conference media representatives literally screamed at him claiming the election had already been “called” by all the networks, to which Giuliani offered the obvious response that TV networks don’t decide elections (state officials do) and that courts can set aside elections if they are illegal.

He raised the possibility of courts setting aside the election results in Pennsylvania and other states. “The ballots that were not properly inspected should be thrown out and that number of ballots should be taken out of the count. That could affect the election,” he was reported as saying. “However, there certainly is enough evidence to disqualify a certain number of ballots. The ballots that were not properly inspected should be thrown out and that number of ballots should be taken out of the count. That could affect the election.”

Giuliani said President Trump was not going to concede with at least 600,000 ballots in question and this was confirmed when the president issued an official statement confirming that “this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor.”

Hello Rupert, bye-bye Malcolm

Source: The New Daily – by Bruce Guthrie

News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)

Anyone who doubts Rupert Murdoch’s role in the political chaos that has played out in recent days has never worked for him at a senior level.

Murdoch’s annual visits to Australia invariably trigger seismic events both in and outside News Corp, the company he’s presided over for decades.

So is it any surprise that Malcolm Turnbull has lost his job less than a fortnight after Murdoch arrived here? Of course it isn’t.

Murdoch flew in on August 10 and set about doing what he always does: he attended the annual News Awards, which fete the company’s best and brightest journalists, conducted one-on-ones with his editors and then signed off on the inevitable promotions, demotions and executions of the company’s most senior staff.

(I once endured all three on one of his visits – surviving a relatively benign one-on-one with Murdoch, accepting a News Award and then getting sacked, all in a matter of days.)

For good measure Murdoch also attended the 75th birthday of the Institute of Public Affairs on Monday night and was interviewed on stage with former Liberal PM, John Howard, by one of the media tycoon’s preferred columnists, Janet Albrechtsen.

Throughout all this he would have been forming a view that Turnbull’s time was up – in fact, he probably arrived with that view – and then imparted that message to his editors.

He wouldn’t have had to tell his columnists or his TV commentators because they arrived at that view months ago and have been preaching it ad nauseum. Foremost here have been Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine and Peta Credlin.

They have been aided by an army of Sydney shock jocks, notably Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and Paul Murray.

In the end it took just 11 days after Murdoch’s arrival to bring about a party room spill. It played out less than 24 hours after that IPA appearance.

While much of Tuesday’s party room drama was driven by Tony Abbott and his ultra-conservative cohorts, there were plenty of willing executioners within News Corp, its various arms and Sydney’s blowhard broadcasters.

Turnbull alluded to these internal and external agents of regime change at his extraordinary press conference on Thursday afternoon in Canberra.

“A minority in the party room, supported by others outside the parliament, have sought to bully, intimidate others into making this change of leadership,” he said.

He avoided specifics, but it was clear who he was referring to.

Channel Nine political editor Chris Uhlmann had made the same point on Thursday morning, telling Today viewers hours before the Turnbull press conference that “everyone from the PM down has pointed out to me that they believe there has been a campaign waged against them”.

Uhlmann went on: “We are talking about The Australian, The Daily Telegraph, tabloid newspapers around the country, 2GB in Sydney led by Alan Jones and Ray Hadley, and Sky News in particular with its evening line-up, are waging a war against the prime minister of Australia.”

He’s right, of course.

Predictably, the News Corp backlash was swift, with various operatives condemning Uhlmann’s comments as “disgusting” and “outrageous”. They should get out more often.

Journalists traditionally tread a fine line in leadership contests, forced to sift through leaks, whispers and background conversations when reporting a fast-moving story. On this occasion though, too many appeared to cross it. And most of those work for News Corp or its entities.

Their willingness to insert themselves into the story was a long, long way from traditional journalism’s demands of objectivity, fairness, balance and a genuine search for truth. I fear it won’t be a one-off either.

The front pages of the company’s tabloids were also firmly against Turnbull, the Herald Sun branding him “Dead Mal Walking” and the Courier-Mail welcoming candidate Dutton with “The Pete Is On”.

The choir was pretty clearly singing from the same song sheet. This is not entirely unexpected. As many have observed on this and other continents, Rupert has form in this regard.

Time and again it’s been shown that he likes to meddle in the politics of the countries his outlets operate in. Just last month The Washington Post reported that he talks with US President Donald Trump every day.

This week’s events and Murdoch’s role in them were another reminder that recent law changes have created media monsters that even prime ministers have reason to fear.

Turnbull has now paid with his job because on some level he failed Murdoch and his minions. The simplest explanation is he was perceived as just too liberal.

The real beneficiary of all this is Bill Shorten. But he shouldn’t dwell on his good fortune for too long.

That’s because the treatment of Turnbull by News Corp inevitably throws up this question: If Murdoch and Co will go to such lengths to oust a Liberal leader, what will they do to keep Labor from power?

Bruce Guthrie is co-founder of The New Daily and a former editor-in-chief of News Corp’s Melbourne newspaper, the Herald Sun.

Yonder comes Turnbull’s republic; Bill of Rights on the bar table

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.

Read the rest of this entry

Turnbull spin hit for six by the people’s politician Pauline Hanson

Convicted Islamic terrorists will stay in jail forever under new laws proposed by Malcolm Turnbull – but Pauline Hanson calls for them to be kicked out of the country

  • Malcolm Turnbull called a meeting of his state and territory counterparts
  • Mr Turnbull wants to introduce new laws to keep convicted terrorists in jail
  • The prime minister said those at risk of re-offending should not be released
  • He said laws need to be introduced quickly in the wake of recent attacks

Source: The DAILY Mail

Legislation that allows high-risk terrorist offenders to remain detained after their jail sentences end must be introduced quickly in the wake of recent global attacks, the prime minister says.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has asked Attorney-General George Brandis to convene a meeting of his state and territory counterparts as soon as possible, to consider the scheme and agree on the design.

‘This is a significant public safety and security issue and our governments must do all we can to protect the community from individuals posing a high risk of reoffending and/or those in need of continued rehabilitation,’ Mr Turnbull wrote in a letter to premiers and chief ministers on Sunday.

Malcolm Turnbull says Australia needs to introduce new legislation that allows high-risk terrorist offenders to remain detained after their jail sentences end following a spate of recent global terror attacks 

Malcolm Turnbull says Australia needs to introduce new legislation that allows high-risk terrorist offenders to remain detained after their jail sentences end following a spate of recent global terror attacks


Convicted terrorists Mohamed Ali Elomar (left) and Moustafa Cheikho (right) could remain behind bars after their respective 28 and 26 year prison sentences end if it is feared they are likely to re-offend

The proposed post-sentencing preventative detention scheme would allow for continued imprisonment of high-risk convicted terrorists, similar to processes already in place for sex offenders and violent criminals.

The federal government and state premiers agreed to the scheme at the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments in Canberra in April.

Mr Turnbull last week asked Australia’s counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Greg Moriarty, for ideas on how to prevent lone wolf attacks following the Nice massacre.

Eighty-four people were killed and hundreds injured when a 31-year-old Tunisian man with a record of domestic violence and petty crimes drove a truck through a Bastille Day crowd in the southern French city.

Islamic State fighter Khaled Sharrouf (right) was jailed in Australia before he used his brothers passport to flee to Syria where he became infamous after sharing an image of his young son holding a severed head

The grisly photos Sharrouf shared on social media were reviled by those in Australia

The grisly photos Sharrouf shared on social media were reviled by those in Australia

Abdul Rakib Hasan (pictured) was jailed for his involvement in a terror plot in which a group stockpiled chemicals, a sniper handbook and ammunication between 2004 and 2005    Moustafa Cheikho
 Abdul Rakib Hasan (left) and Moustafa Cheikho (right) were jailed for their involvement in a terror plot in which a group stockpiled chemicals, a sniper handbook and ammunition between 2004 and 2005

Mohammed Omar Jamal was also among five men convicted for the terror plot which had no specific target

Eighty-four people were killed and hundreds injured when a 31-year-old Tunisian man with a record of domestic violence and petty crimes drove a truck (pictured) through a Bastille Day crowd in the southern French city

Hundreds of mourners laid flowers candles and messages at a makeshift memorial following the attack 

The prime minister asked Attorney-General George Brandis (right) to convene a meeting of his state and territory counterparts as soon as possible, to consider the scheme and agree on the design

Comment: “If George Brandis said it was raining you would need to walk outside to check”…

Mr Turnbull has asked Australia's counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Greg Moriarty (pictured), for ideas on how to prevent lone wolf attacks following the Nice massacre

The terror threat level has been at ‘probable’ since September 2014, meaning individuals or groups have developed both an intent and capability to conduct a terrorist attack in Australia.

Pauline Hanson, who’s Senate seat is expected to be confirmed, says people jailed for terror-related crimes should be kicked out of the country upon their release.

‘I wouldn’t trust them to be rehabilitated … I want to kick them out of the country,’ she told Seven Network.

Pauline Hanson (pictured), who's Senate seat is expected to be confirmed, says people jailed for terror-related crimes should be kicked out of the country upon their release

Pauline Hanson says convicted terrorists should be kicked out


turnbull-1In 1984 Justice Hunt in the NSW Supreme Court said Malcolm Turnbull had “managed effectively to poison the fountain of justice” in relation to defamatory statements Mr Turnbull had made in the media while representing Kerry Packer during the Costigan Royal Commission. Some say it probably also helped end Turnbull’s career in law.

Malcolm Turnbull likes to portray that he was a young super barrister who won a huge case(Spycatcher) and then moved on to business with his career but the reality seems to be different and it is worth reviewing his short legal career.


Bruce McWilliams

The real story is that in 1984 Malcolm Turnbull and his corrupt mate Bruce McWilliam [now Commercial Director at Seven Network] instituted frivolous and vexatious defamation proceedings on behalf of Kerry Packer against Douglas Meagher who was counsel assisting the Royal Commission. They used the media and lied, deceived, ducked and weaved and trashed the reputation of Mr Meagher to help legendary tax cheat Packer dodge prosecution during the Costigan Royal Commission.

The proceedings were so frivolous and vexatious they only lasted a couple of days and it backfired badly as the Judge hearing the case unloaded with both barrels mostly directed at Malcolm Turnbull.

It’s worth noting that Malcolm Turnbull has a glass jaw when it comes to criticism of himself. He is well known to threaten journalists with defamation proceedings and he sued Fairfax Media in 1981 which I wrote about in an article last year. Turnbull’s partner in crime Bruce McWilliam also gets a fair mention in the article.

Read the full story at Kangaroo Courts of Australia – [click here]

Malcolm Turnbull lunched with slain lawyer Joseph Acquaro

The Telegraph May 22, 2016 9:00pm

 Election 2016: Wrap up on week 2

MALCOLM Turnbull unwittingly had lunch with self-professed mafia front man Joseph Acquaro, who years later was shot dead outside his Brunswick East ice-cream parlour.

The Herald Sun can confirm Mr Acquaro joined the then Opposition Leader at a fundraising lunch for Liberal MP Russell Broadbent at Box restaurant in Collins St in late 2008. Others present included fruit mogul Tony Madafferi, brother of jailed drug trafficker Frank Madafferi, and Joe Mirabella, of Mirabella lighting.

Mr Acquaro told the Herald Sun, just months before his execution, that he had spent decades “lobbying’’ politicians for the mafia and other businessmen. He said he had met with Mr Turnbull in 2008, at a lunch organised by Mr Broadbent. He said he lobbied both sides of politics on behalf of Calabrian businessmen including Tony Madafferi, who was a well-known donor to the Liberal Party.

The mob lawyer, who in 2015 became aware he had an alleged $200,000 contract on his life, was gunned down on the footpath near his ice-cream parlour. He was shot five times by an unknown assassin.

He had spoken to the Herald Sun several times in the months leading up to his death, and said the meeting with Mr Madafferi and Mr Turnbull had occurred in Melbourne’s parliamentary precinct.

Joe Acquaro was found dead in St Phillip St in a targeted execution in Brunswick East. Picture: Nicole Garmston
Murdered gangland lawyer Joe Acquaro. Picture: Supplied

The Herald Sun does not suggest there was anything improper in these meetings. But in the middle of an election campaign, the revelations will again bring scrutiny to the vexed issue of political donations, and what access donors can get to politicians.

Mr Turnbull’s spokesman said the Prime Minister remembered the lunch, but not the guests’ names.

“The Prime Minister recalls attending a fundraiser lunch for Russell Broadbent in Melbourne in 2008 with a number of Mr Broadbent’s local supporters,’’ the spokesman said.

“The Prime Minister does not recall the names of Mr Broadbent’s guests.

“As far as Joe Mirabella is concerned, the Prime Minister does recall meeting him while Environment Minister in 2007 in the context of the Howard government’s decision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by switching away from energy inefficient incandescent bulbs.

“The Prime Minister does not recall the names of any other associates of Mr Mirabella.’’

Mr Broadbent, who confirmed Mr Madafferi had made political donations, initially told the Herald Sun he could not recall “specific meetings between Joe (Acquaro) and any senior person.’’

“Look, I’m sure there’s been lots of meetings that Mr Turnbull has attended with lots of people, and I wouldn’t have any comment on that at all,’’ he said.

“I don’t want to make any comment on Joe. I think it’s an absolute tragedy that he’s died. I think it’s very, very sad.’’

But on Sunday he confirmed that he did in fact recall the lunch, at the restaurant Box on Collins.

He confirmed Mr Acquaro, Mr Madafferi and Mr Mirabella attended.

“Joe Mirabella pulled this one together,’’ he said.

Mr Broadbent said he had a “standing situation’’ with Mr Turnbull that would see the Opposition Leader attend a fundraising lunch if he had the time when in Melbourne.

“He did it a number of times,’’ he said.

“Malcolm knew Joe (Mirabella), he’d previously met Joe.’’

Asked to describe his relationship with Mr Madafferi, Mr Broadbent replied: “He’s a donor and we have been friendly for a long period of time.

“I take people as I see them.’’

Mr Broadbent said he “hadn’t done anything wrong’’ and resented the implication that he had by attending Liberal Party fundraisers.

“I haven’t seen him (Mr Acquaro) for a long time.

“The association I had with him, he was another personality in the crowds.’’

In 2014, Tony Madafferi would be excluded from Crown Casino by then police chief commissioner Ken Lay, and the following year he would be approached by organised crime taskforce detectives about an alleged contract on Mr Acquaro’s life.

Tony Madafferi and Russell Broadbent.

Documents and photographs obtained by the Herald Sun expose the extent of Mr Acquaro and Tony Madafferi’s political connections.

Mr Acquaro, however, had said those connections were severed after he had a bitter fallout with the Madafferi brother three years ago.

In several pictures, taken by Mr Acquaro on the day of the federal Budget in either 2005 or 2006, Toni Madafferi and another Calabrian businessmen are seated in the Member’s Dining Room in Parliament House in Canberra with Mr Broadbent, and in another photograph, now-Environment Minister Greg Hunt.

Tony Madafferi and Greg Hunt.

Mr Hunt has previously said he had been introduced to Tony Madafferi a decade ago but had no contact with him for about six years.

Tony Madafferi, and uncle Vince Madafferi, are in the photos.

“They came to lunch that day. I didn’t know they were in the building. They arrived unannounced in my office with Lou Gazzola who is a highly respected former chairman of the Victorian Vegetable Growers Association,’’ Mr Broadbent said.

“I have a long-time relationship with the Italian community because I was born at Koo Wee Rup.

“Of course I would offer any hospitality to Lou and the people with him.’’

Mr Acquaro, the former president of the Italian Chamber of Commerce, claimed he was the link for Tony Madafferi to gain political influence.

A series of letters, obtained by the Herald Sun, also reveals Mr Acquaro lobbied Liberal MPs on behalf of Mr Madafferi and other Calabrian businessmen.

In 2003, he wrote to Adam Joseph, a staff member for Liberal senator Marise Payne, as he worked towards getting Frank Madafferi’s deportation order overturned.

Frank Madafferi was refused a renewed residency visa on character grounds, but the then immigration minister, Amanda Vanstone, revoked the order on humanitarian grounds after she was lobbied by some of her colleagues, including Mr Broadbent.

Former senator Amanda Vanstone.

The incident was investigated by the Australian Federal Police who probed at least three federal Liberal MPs, with the corruption inquiry finding there was insufficient evidence that the donors had influenced the MPs.

Frank Madafferi was later convicted for his part in a mafia syndicate that imported the world’s biggest ecstasy haul in 2008. He will be deported when his jail term expires.

Katter rallies with drivers to keep independent truckies on road

Katter truck rally



A Pragmatism That Panders to the Powerful

An article by leading election expert, visiting Fellow at the Australian Catholic University and 3 Million Voices Chairman,
Malcolm Mackerras AO.

Supporters of the Liberal Party of Australia – you must be very disappointed by the outcome in the Federal Parliament on your so-called “Senate reform”. Were there to have been any of you who may have imagined the Liberal Party to be possessed of any principles in matters electoral those members would have now resigned in the wake of the party’s recent piece of pragmatism pandering to the powerful.


The three co-conspirators in this four-party stitch-up can make some claims on their own behalf.
The Greens can say these Senate changes are in accordance with the principles they have espoused since 2004. They can also claim their views are consistent with the world-wide Green view of democracy.

Senator Nick Xenophon can claim he will make decent gains in numbers of senators under a system truly rigged in his favour.

The Nationals can claim they will be able to continue contesting Senate elections in Western Australia – for the time being. That was the important concession they were able to wring from the Liberal Party. See my further comment below.

The Liberals, meanwhile, are left with crumbs from the Xenophon-Greens table – probably an early double dissolution election on July 2 and, perhaps, one more senator.

But, of course, that is what Malcolm Turnbull wants. So Turnbull has a quick win but the Liberal Party loses over the longer term to the Greens.

The Labor Party can claim to have returned to principle. It can also claim it has put the national interest ahead of its own electoral interests. Labor’s only problem now is how best to explain why it was tempted to stray from the straight and narrow path over the past two years when it wandered on the low moral ground with the Liberals and the Greens.

Meanwhile the trade union movement is delighted with Labor and disgusted with the Greens. Rightly so!

The Constitutional principles at risk

The Proportional Representation Society of Australia (PRSA) and I are the only people in the country who have put principle first. Our principles are the democratic values of the Australian Constitution.

Section 7 commands: “The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting as one electorate.”

Section 24 commands: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth. . .”

Those are our principles – “directly chosen by the people” being the rule for all our federal politicians, except for senators filling casual vacancies.

(If I may divert myself I should say that I am starting to wonder whether in 1977 I should have supported the amendment to section 15 dealing with Senate casual vacancies. Perhaps historians will see that change as the thin end of the wedge for a situation whereby all senators are – de facto – appointed by party machines.)

Our Constitution’s principles tell us that all our federal politicians must be elected in a CANDIDATE-BASED electoral system.

Labor can still claim to stand by those principles: the Liberal Party cannot. It is now about to face a serious High Court challenge. Being part of that challenge myself I know it is serious and with a very reasonable chance of success, whatever Anne Twomey and George Williams may say.

Effectively the Liberal Party will ask this of the Court: to repeal (de facto) the words “directly chosen by the people” in section 7 while leaving them still in place in section 24.

I refuse to believe the Court would do that. It would be cherry-picking of the worst kind.

Those words are convenient to the two big parties (Labor and Liberal) for the House of Representatives, due to its single member constituency basis for election. They are inconvenient to them for the Senate because six or twelve senators are elected for states voting as one electorate.

Labor has (at last!) chosen principle, the Liberals the convenience of their own machine.

There are so many things wrong with this newly-legislated system I lack the space to give details. However, it is easy to find the one and only good thing about it. There would be a reasonable option given to electors to vote below the line.

For me, therefore, the role of the High Court is an easy one: strike down the above-the-line changes as being unconstitutional but leave all other details in place as the Parliament has passed them.

What do good democratic principles look like?

When it comes to proportional representation in Australia there is one system generally agreed to be very good, Tasmania’s Hare-Clark system, in successful operation there since 1909.

A Hare-Clark supporter like me (and the PRSA) has no difficulty in explaining the Tasmanian system (also operating in inferior form in the ACT) in its EVERY DETAIL as being constructed according to good democratic principles.

Fortunately for me I chose to oppose this new Senate system from the very beginning. It means I shall not need to describe its details dishonestly. Unfortunately for its supporters that is exactly what they will need to do.

Take, for example, an agreed fact. This system is 90 per cent the same as the system recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in May 2014.

So what explains the 10 per cent difference? Supporters will tell you those differences make the system more democratic.

Rubbish! Those supporters must surely know that the JSCEM proposal did not have the numbers to get it through the Senate.

The 10 per cent difference was, pure and simple, the means to get the Nationals on board. See my earlier comment.

A decent system such as Hare-Clark is based on democratic principle. After that it is a case of “Let the chips fall where they may”.

An example of an honest ballot paper

So let me describe the ballot paper for Bass in 2014 where five members of the Tasmanian House of Assembly were elected.

Above the 22 candidates it reads: “Number the boxes from 1 to 22 in order of your choice”. Below the candidates it reads: “Your vote will not count unless you number at least 5 boxes.”

That is an honest ballot paper and is in striking contrast with this new Senate ballot paper where both above-the-line and below-the-line instructions are dishonest and will confuse voters.

An honest ballot paper does not rely on so-called “savings” provisions as is the case with the legislated new Senate system. Thus, when the instruction for the below-the-line vote reads: “Number the boxes from 1 to at least 12” the deceit is clear to me, but probably not to the average voter. Like that Bass ballot paper (see above) it should read: “Your vote will not count unless you number at least 6 boxes”, six being the number of senators to be elected.

Read more and sign the petition – [HERE]


A quick view into the Turnbull Chronicles

From the plethora of information we have in our TURNBULL CHRONICLES, this

smidgen will enlighten you to his credibility or lack of

from Harry Palmer

Politicians since time began have planned agenda to methodical personal nest feathering from this acquired position of power, along with perks that come with job.

Occasionally one will trip, dropping thirty pieces of silver triggering a point scoring reaction from opposition, then followed by colleague denial amidst a truly unaccountable network of bureaucratic disguised red tape as accountable control.

One instrument, still baffling modern science, the process used to convert smart, sometimes well educated persons, dedicated to represent the people in our suggested democratic parliament. Crossing the threshold to “party pals”, within a week dismisses constituent concern for the “party room pals”. Should ever this cloned puppet decide to represent constituents against party, castigated ensues under hailing abuse, personal attack and threats of dismissal to no future preselection to represent the constituents next polling day.

Understanding multi millionaire Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull’s allegiance to Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd’s push to introduce ETS (Environment Trading Scheme), is a license to print money for trading in hot air while costing ALL Australians $BILLIONS of dollars in taxes to support third world nations and finance projected World Government.

Presented is a smidgen of information about Malcolm Turnbull may explain his credibility to Australia, his dedication to the almighty dollar and corporate friendship alive and very well.

Malcolm Turnbull born 1954, raised in Sydney’s eastern suburbs of Vaucluse and Double Bay, attended prestigious Sydney Grammar School as a boarder then completing a double degree in law and arts, Mr Turnbull during his university years worked as a journalist for the Bulletin, Channel Nine. Winning a Rhodes scholarship to study at Oxford University in 1978, he continued as a journalist with the Sunday Times London.



The Turnbull aspiration for politics started in 1981 when presented for Liberal party candidate in Wentworth and beaten by eight votes by standing member Peter Coleman. Just two votes halted his preselection in 1983 by Phillip Smiles for the seat of Mosman.

If at first you don’t succeed, try again, this time deciding to aim for “PRESIDENT” of the new “Republic of Australia”.

Appointed by the Keating Labor government to head the Republican Advisory Committee, led the subsequent republic campaign into the unsuccessful 1999 referendum.

The ill-fated referendum in 1999: Chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, describing monarchist Prime Minister John Howard as the man “who broke a nation’s heart”, Malcolm again retired hurt.

Makes you wonder this deckchair changer aspired to be the Liberal member for the Sydney seat of Wentworth in a government headed by Australia’s leading monarchist, John Howard.

2000: Turnbull explores preselection for Wentworth but bows out after being convinced that sitting Liberal member Peter King has the numbers.

2004: Narrowly defeats Peter King for Liberal preselection and then wins the seat after a tight election campaign.

2006: Appointed as parliamentary secretary for water.

2007: Appointed as Environment minister.


kerry-packerAs a lawyer saw Mr Turnbull in 1984 acts as legal counsel for Kerry Packer, outed as the prominent businessman codenamed “Goanna” in the Costigan Royal Commission alleging involvement in criminal activities on Australia’s docks.

Again in 1989 working for Kerry Packer’s move to shut down Aboriginal Television Station in the Northern Territory in 1989 collapsed when the Aborigines established a radio station 8KIN broadcasting in their native tongue to the people applied to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for a Television station license, which was granted to “Imparja”. Just weeks before Imparja was due to go to air, the NT Government appealed against the decision in Federal Courts and LOST. With only 3 day to go before opening the TV Channel, the howling of ravaging wolves from the opposing packer owned Northern Territory Television Station in Darwin, asked the Broadcasting Tribunal to review Imparja’s license and to enquire into it’s resources. Despite this power hungry corporate magnate’s backdoor attempt to close down Imparja, Turnbull’s legal attack did not survive, “Imparja” is alive and very well today.

Kerry Packer planned to takeover Fairfax with a suggested motivation of dealing out retribution on journalist and editors was not impressed with Malcolm Turnbull, threatening to “KILL HIM” when Mr Turnbull secretly handed over vital information that forced Kerry Packer to pull out of his bid for the Fairfax media group in 1991.

Malcolm Turnbull is quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald LINK HERE newspaper – “He did threaten to kill me. And I said to him:

‘Well, you’d better make sure that your assassin gets me first because if he misses, you better know I won’t miss you’.

“I regarded what Kerry was doing as absolutely … it was not only stupid but it was contrary to everyone’s interests,” Mr Turnbull told Ms Crabb.

“And he was taking the view that because he was bigger and richer than me, he could run me into the ground.

“So I rang Kerry Packer and I had a major row with him. I said: `If you want to do this, this is it. This is the end. There is no stepping back from this.

“This is war … I told him I’d get him thrown out of the deal. I never make threats I don’t carry out’.”

Is this an insight to current Liberal Party Room under Malcolm Turnbull, Investment Banker looking to at any cost legislating ETS that will open a whole new trading area for investment companies, one being Turnbull & Partners Pty Ltd.



PoliticianLeaving the law profession in 1987, creating an investment banking firm Whitlam Turnbull & Co Ltd with Neville Wran, once Labor government premier of NSW and Nicholas Whitlam, son of Gough Whitlam once Labor Government Prime Minister.

Malcolm Turnbull, former Australian Chairman of merchant bank Goldman Sachs, the global commodity trading company who just coincidentally happen to trade billions of dollars worth of carbon permits, was also brought to the Royal Commission in the HIH collapse to account Goldman Sach involvement – “ring any bells”?
With the challenge by Joe Hockey to Mr Turnbull for leadership, back in 1998 the Managed Investments Act 1998 (MIA) commenced (formerly known as the Corporations Law) governing the regulation of managed investment schemes. The MIA required that a review be undertaken as soon as possible after the third anniversary of its commencement. The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, the Hon Joe Hockey MP, appointed Mr Malcolm Turnbull to undertake this review. How much was Turnbull paid for this job?


forest-harvestjpgAppointed as Environment minister in 2007, amazed those who knew of Malcolm’s involvement in the Solomon Islands.

Mr. Turnbull’s connection to the logging industry in Solomon Islands began in 1991 and 1992.

Chairman and share holder of the then Hong Kong listed Axiom Forest Resources that own logging operations and forest concessions in the Solomon’s was operating under the trading name, Silvania Forest Products in Western Province and other parts of the country.

Mr. Turnbull claimed in a media interview with ABC last year that “his attitude towards forestry today was informed by his involvement in the (Solomon Islands) logging industry”.

He rejected accusations that he had once played a huge role in bad logging practices
in Solomon Islands, claiming “he was trying to encourage local landowners to change logging practices and ways”.

Mr. Turnbull then further claimed “…. the company (Silvania) brought in some of the best foresters in the world. There was a lot of work done on reforestation, on plantations”.

A report by the Australian International Development Aid Bureau – now Ausaid – in 1994 described the logging practices of Axiom subsidiary Silvania Forest Products as:”…more like a clear-felling operation and bearing little relation to an attempt at even retaining a token sample of future commercial crop on the site.”

A separate report also described Silvania’s forest practices as “amongst the worst in the world”.

Following the reports, the Solomon Islands government then, which was led by a Prime Minister with logging interests and ownership, the former and late Solomon Mamaloni, threaten to close down Silvania’s operations due to constant breaches of logging practices.

Targeting the liberal party we are not, targeting those who would be king we are, targeting democracy decay we expose, so if the shoe fits – change it on the only day of democracy in Australia – POLLING DAY.

banana republic













Turnbull puts republic on hold until the Queen is no longer on the throne

Malcolm Turnbull Republican 1999

Upsetting a substantial portion of liberal party faithful when unceremoniously removing Tony Abbott to steal Prime Ministership, Malcolm Turnbull’s second goal to establishing Australia as a republic now would overload his ego driven conquests.

In a public backdown from his republic crusade, Prime Minister Turnbull stated to media;

“Now is not the time for an Australian republic, we must wait until the Queen is no longer on the throne”.

 “I’ve led a ‘yes’ case for a republic into a ­heroic defeat once. I’ve got no ­desire to do so again”.

When he lost the 1999 referendum, Mr Turnbull said the monarchist PM of the time John Howard had “broken our hearts”.

October 1st 1999 the government issued writs announcing polling day 6 November 1999 for a referendum vote seeking electorate approval;

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

Not one state voted in favour.

Even the dead vote in Australia

Having established a power base under our current constitution by ignoring that constitution, the two party preferred system of government now wish to rewrite the rules without disclosure and expect your approval to do so.

Section 128 and section 51 of the Constitution specifies that alterations to itself cannot be made without a referendum. A bill containing the amendment must first be passed by both houses of parliament, in certain limited circumstances, by only one house of parliament. If the bill has only been passed in one house, the Governor General, under the ‘deadlock provision’ of section 128, then decide whether or not to submit the referendum to the people. By convention, this is done on the advice of the Prime Minister (who appointed the Governor General). Since the Prime Minister normally controls the House of Representatives, the effect of this convention is to make it virtually impossible for a referendum to be put to the people if approved by the Senate, but not the House.

Interestingly there have been 45 referendums conducted since federation, 7 being carried, 38 not carried indicating a mine field for dictators in parliament with the last referendum being the move to become a republic that was dumped by the people.

Loosing control of their political monopolised media highway of mainstream tabloid, radio and television, the power of Internet information now exposes political spin once accepted as gospel.

The crystal ball of caucus reflects an informed public is no longer comfortable with major parties. This requires damage control to maintain the status-quo duopoly government and the present constitution must go. Welcome the dawning of a well scripted republic constitution by spin doctoring politicians.

From the current coordinated media release of another republic referendum being supported by all states except WA, who are totally content with their untouchable corruption and police state comfort zone. There is no doubt Malcolm Turnbull convened clandestine discussion of a tailored republic echoing concern to the duopoly power base under attack from the flow of party faithful shifting support to alternative government out of their control, cannot establish public support, they do not have the numbers.

Fading public support of Malcolm Turnbull may see the Queen in office well after this Prime Minister has been removed.

Is Nathan Tinkler digging Malcolm Turnbull’s political grave?


Malcolm Turnbull PM

by Harry Palmer

Ignoring a decade of Hunter Valley farmers in their plight to halt coal mining and gas fracking of prime agricultural land, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull now is at the coal face himself.

His family farm lies under clouds of dust driven by prevailing winds 5 kilometres from Nathan Tinkler’s open cut venture at the underground Dartbrook coal mine, which is of great concern to the township of Aberdeen, next door to the mine.

Malcolm advocates the mining of prime food bowl agricultural lands, but those driving the opposition are wealthy horse stud breeders also backed by our ever arrogant Prime Minister.

We will be following this battle front with interest comparing the plight of neighbouring Liverpool Plains farmers under siege from coal mining operations protected by government legislation.  Many of those farmers have been prosecuted for trying to protect their properties.

Election now looms through a contrived fog of media polls, drowning out that distinct stench of political corruption and previously tolerated arrogance, now being challenged.

‘King Malcolm’ now sits upon a throne of thorns. Will he legislate or will he capitulate?

Death and disaster has befallen farmers as a result of government support of invasive coal and gas mining.

Independent internet outlets are now dwarfing establishment media, and have presented the Vaucluse farming PM with a political cross roads.

What do you think he will do?


Federal Government says Sharia Law already operating in Australia

Family Matters No. 84

Legal recognition of Sharia law

Is this the right direction for Australian family matters?

Ann Black

A new direction for a pluralistic nation?


Australia is marked by pluralism – cultural, religious and ethnic. Yet, our legal system is not pluralistic. Apart from some concessions to the Indigenous peoples of this country, we abide by the “one law for all” mantra. Both sides of politics have rejected a separate stream of law for specific religious or ethnic communities on the basis that Australia is a secular nation. Freedom of religion and worship is protected, but religion is to play no part in the formal legal system. Australia’s former treasurer, Peter Costello (2006), argued, “there is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution. If you can’t accept that then you don’t accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for” (para. 44). This year, Attorney-General Robert McCelland confirmed that the “Rudd government is not considering and will not consider the introduction of any part of Sharia law into the Australian legal system” (Zwartz, 2009).

Research undertaken by Dunn (2005) and Poynting, Noble, Tabar, and Collins (2004) indicates that there is a high level of apprehension among the general population about Muslims “in our suburbs”, which gives support to the contention that the majority of Australians accept and endorse the “one law for all” approach. However, this position does raise challenges for Australian Muslims for whom adherence to their religious law – the Sharia1 – is an Islamic obligation and not a matter of personal preference, particularly in regard to family matters.

The issue of whether Australia should give formal legal recognition to Sharia law in resolving family law disputes involving Muslims will be canvassed in this paper. The case for and against such recognition is outlined. Debate on this issue has gained currency across common law jurisdictions due to several recent events. One was the legal recognition given to Islamic arbitration in the province of Ontario, Canada, in 2004. Although the enabling sections of the Arbitration Act were subsequently repealed, it did ignite the possibility that within a common law system there could be faith-based dispute resolution for family law and other legal matters. The second event was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s address to the Royal Courts of Justice (Williams, 2008), in which he promoted the concept of Britain becoming a “plural jurisdiction” by accommodating aspects of Sharia law. Although this speech provoked opposition from some other members of Britain’s legal, political and religious communities (including some Muslim groups), the Lord Chief Justice of Britain came to the Archbishop’s defence by also supporting alternative dispute resolution using Sharia principles. Whether this is the right direction for Australia or whether we should retain the status quo needs consideration and debate.

This paper examines arguments that have been raised for and against the official recognition of Sharia law and finds that, on balance, the status quo should prevail.

The case for official recognition

Sharia law is already operating in Australia

Given that many of Australia’s 350,000 Muslims (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2006) are already regulating their lives according to Sharia, it is logical to officially recognise and support this. Sharia regulates the legal relationships many Australian Muslims enter into and out of, including marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance, as well as contractual and commercial dealings. Among Australian Muslims, there exists a strong preference to have legal questions answered and disputes settled by persons with Islamic credentials. Except in rare cases, this does not mean there is rejection of Australian laws, but instead there is a desire to conform with Sharia law when it is possible to do so. Muslims as minorities in secular societies like Australia have been recognised as skilled “cultural navigators” (Yilmaz, 2005), able to manoeuvre through two systems of law, one of their nation and the other of their faith.

Complying with both systems of laws is one approach that can and is being taken. In Australia, marriage is a good example where there can readily be dual compliance. The Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) accommodates Islamic marriages by allowing marriages to be performed and registered by a Muslim marriage celebrant, usually an Imam, without the need for a separate registering event or ceremony. Polygynist marriages, however, remain problematic, being unlawful under section 94 of the Act.