31 May 2011

Judicial Reform: Part 2

(See also: Judicial Reform Part One)

Under the terms of the Australian Constitution there are two Houses of Parliament: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Members of both houses are elected by popular vote. Examination of the Constitution reveals that there is a “third house” in our Parliament, the Judiciary. Positions in this house are appointed (for life) and are not the result of popular elections. We have by definition two houses which are “democratic” in nature and one which operates as an old-fashioned autocracy. The judiciary answers to no one and it is “self regulated”, except under section 72 of the Constitution, where a joint house sitting can dismiss federal judges.

In a measure to protect the independence of elements of Australian Government, the doctrine of the “Separation of Powers” has been adopted in Australia (although not clearly spelt out in the Constitution). There is still debate about what the separation of powers means but in general terms it can be described as those who make the laws don’t interpret them, those who interpret them don’t enforce them. There will be those who disagree with this simple description but it will serve for the purpose here.

There is general agreement on the need for an independent judiciary. Political pressure perhaps should not be focused on the judiciary, especially during the conduct of a current active case before the courts. Rarely in the history of Western Nations have courts been the subject of obvious interference by other sections, the media or the public. They are usually left to their processes without interference.

If we examine the judiciary as a house of parliament and not a system of courts, we can see that they are set up by the government and maintained by the taxpayer, in the built environment and the salaries etc for court personnel, not unlike other arms of government. But the judiciary (and let’s include solicitors here as they are ”admitted to the courts” by a formal process and under various Acts of Parliament they have exclusive and protected domain to practice law and give legal advice; they are part of the judiciary in the same way as police officers are part of government), has an exclusive nature to its make-up. An individual has to have legal qualifications and experience to even be considered to an appointment to the bench. Likewise, solicitors are part of an elite in western society. They are qualified in some way in study of law and they are seen to be a “profession”.

If we consider the separation of powers and the need to recognise the independence of each element of government we can clearly identify that the judiciary is a fortress in relation to how it operates as compared to the House of Representatives and the Senate, where anyone with a nomination fee and good community support and a bit of luck can theoretically enter those houses. Not just anyone can enter the judiciary though only suitably qualified individuals can be allowed.

We now consider the make-up of individuals who occupy the “peoples houses”, the Senate and the House of Representatives. A large number of these individuals are qualified lawyers. Ordinary people can not enter the judiciary, but elements of the judiciary can come and go in the other houses as they please. In fact, given the large numbers of lawyers in the federal government it could be seen by reasonable individuals as being actively encouraged. Gone are the days of warfies, railway engine drivers and shearers occupying seats in the peoples’ houses.

Lets have a look at the current Federal Government in terms of lawyers:

Labor (33)

Julia Gillard 1
Senator Penny Wong 2
Andrew Leigh 3
Bill Shorten 4
Senator Joe Ludwig 5
Peter Garrett 6
Brendan O’Connor 7
Craig Thomson 8
David Bradbury 9
Daryl Melham 10
Janelle Saffin 11
Senator Michael Forshaw 12
Graham Perrett 13
Kelvin Thomson 14
Kirsten Livermore 15
Laura Smyth 16
Mark Butler 17
Mark Dreyfus 18
Melissa Parke 19
Michelle Rowland 20
Mike Kelly 21
Nicola Roxon 22
Richard Marles 23
Senator Mark Bishop 24
Robert McClelland 25
Shayne Neumann 26
Stephen Jones 27
Stephen Smith 28
Tony Burke 29
Yvette D'Ath 30
Simon Crean 31
Jason Clare 32
Senator Don Farrell 33

Liberal (34)

Tony Abbott 1
Joe Hockey 2
Malcolm Turnbull 3
Phillip Ruddock 4
Julie Bishop 5
Bronwyn Bishop 6
Senator Brett Mason 7
Christopher Pyne 8
Greg Hunt 9
Senator Helen Coonan 10
Kevin Andrews 11
Senator Nick Minchin 12
Steven Ciobo 13
Senator David Johnston 14
Peter Dutton 15
Senator George Brandis 16
Senator Gary Humphries 17
Peter Slipper 18
Senator Eric Abetz 19
Alan Tudge 20
Senator Guy Barnett 21
Senator David Bushby 22
Josh Frydenberg 23
Senator Mary Fisher 24
Senator Mathias Cormann 25
Kelly O’Dywer 26
Senator Michael Ronaldson 27
Paul Fletcher 28
Senator Russell Trood 29
Senator Ian McDonald 30
Senator Marise Payne 31
Sophie Mirabella 32
Senator Michaelia Cash 33
Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells 34

Independents (2)

Robert Oakeshott 1
Senator Nick Xenophon 2

Greens (1)

Adam Brandt 1

(Past Lawyer Politicians include to name but a few : John Howard, Peter Costello, Peter Reith, Bob Hawke, Robert Menzies, Gough Whitlam, Billy Snedden, Billy McMahon, Harold Holt, Neville Wran, Lindsay Tanner…there are a whole lot more)

This comes to a grand total of 70. Can we imagine 70 ordinary individuals occupying positions as judges in that other house? The movement of lawyers in and out of the peoples’ houses can be seen as a breach of the separation of powers which should be addressed. Their presence in the numbers that they have is an over-representation of one type in our government, still the major political parties encourage this.


Addendum: The Queensland Parliament:

Labor (12)

Andrew Fraser 1
Cameron Dick 2
Dean Wells 3
Evan Moorhead 4
Geoffrey Wilson 5
Kerry Shine 6
Mark Ryan 7
Murray Watt 8
Paul Hoolihan 9
Paul Lucas 10
Peter Lawlor 11
Stephen Wettenhall 12

Liberal-National (3)

Jarrod Bleijie 1
Mark McArdle 2
Timothy Nicholls 3

Independent (1)

Peter Wellington 1

Judicial Reform Part 3 is on the way.

18 May 2011

Australia's Homeless

In Australia there are around 132,000 people living on the streets and the number is growing every day. In many cases it is not their fault. Some people are only two pay packets away from being homeless. The question has to be asked: WHY? Why, when a small one or two bedroom cottage that will sleep up to four people can be built for around $30,000. Why, when there are country and regional towns that are dying with people moving out to the bigger centres. Why, when land in some of these areas is very cheap. So why is the government not putting money into building nice little villages to be able to accommodate the homeless? For around three million dollars a village of 50 homes could be constructed and rented out for around $120.00 per week each. A return of $6000 per week on any investment. A return of around 10 percent per year. So not only are you going to get a lot of people into accommodation but you are also going to revitalise some of the country and regional areas, create employment in those areas and get a return for your money. So why does your government send millions of our dollars overseas every year when we have our own people living on the streets? If there are any people out there that would like to invest in such a project to help others, I would only be too happy to show you how you could help and also get a return on your money. You would have complete control of the project and your money so no one will rip you off. You would be doing a service for others that are not as lucky as yourself. We can not just sit back and watch as fellow Australians are dumped on the rubbish tip of life whilst others are being looked after with our dollars.

If any one wants to help I will be only too happy to donate my time. You also may be able to get some form of assistance from the government, something I am yet to look into. I would also be asking the State and Federal Governments to look at using these projects as training centres to teach young people trades such as training to become plumbers, drainers, carpenters, brickies, electricians and all other trades that are associated with the building trade. I would also be looking to get semi-retired tradespeople as trainers to teach the young apprentices. So we have a win-win situation: not only do we help the homeless and pensioners, but we also train people in trades, we employ our older tradies as teachers and we create employment opportunities in country and regional centres.

Peter Schuback
0408 458 232

17 May 2011

One Nation’s Asian Sex Tour: Or The Takeover Of One Nation By Multi-Racialist ‘Conservatives’

The One Nation party is to be revived in Queensland with a new leadership. The party wants to register for the next State election.

Since late last year, One Nation has been in the news. It has been reported for its opposition to the illegal refugee influx. Yet, it was noted by ourselves as early as last December that One Nation did not appear to absolutely oppose the just-as-toxic intake of the “legal” arrivals! Something was amiss. Thereafter came the attempt by former leader Pauline Hanson to enter parliament in New South Wales, vaulting the name ‘One Nation’ into full public view. The party set out to remodel itself.

But what a sad and compromised thing it is. Whatever One Nation was ten or so years ago, the current group seems to be pushing a product little different from the Liberal National Party (LNP). Essentially, One Nation is now all about multiracialism and conservatism.

Australia First makes its allegations very clear. First: One Nation advocates the assimilation of all migrants and any future migrants drawn from anywhere on earth (note: it excludes only Moslems), into an English-speaking civic culture. It would multiracialize Australia finally and completely and thereby destroy the Australian identity. Second: One Nation is cuddling up to the LNP offering limp-wristed ‘criticism’ over some policies, while still promising preferences for patronage.

What is happening? Are Queenslanders being deceived by the brand-name One Nation? However, has its guts been ripped out and has it turned into its opposite?

A Real ‘Stolen Generation’.

Australia First noted the rot had well set in during the last Federal election campaign. A curious policy statement appeared on the party website. One Nation was advocating foreign adoptions from the Third World, with the placing of these children into Aussie families since this was the best way to arrive at “assimilation”.

What?? This didn’t sound too much like our perception of the beliefs of One Nation members.

Last August, a representative of Australia First phoned the One Nation Senate candidate Ian Nelson, who expressed surprise that anyone would question such a policy Mr. Nelson pointed out that the State president, Jim Savage, had experience of the difficulties getting such Third World children into Australia – given his wife had had real problems obtaining visas for her nephew and niece from the Philippines.

Mr. Nelson was asked: “but isn’t that going to make a real sort of stolen generation, one where children are stolen and brought into an alien culture?” “No, it is the best way to assimilate them”, he said. “But maybe we Australians don’t want to assimilate them, maybe they should stay in the Third World”? Call ended.

In their policy statement, One Nation was advancing the proposition that the assimilation of another race into the Australian nation via the backdoor of some family-based ‘cultural assimilation’ of stolen children - was a credible policy goal. Why, why, would one want to preach that? Is there something going on in One Nation?

The Plot Thickens. The Moslem Red-Herring Again

Then the penny was dropped on us concerning Mr. Nelson. Penny? Try cement slab. An article appeared in the Queensland Times. Every patriotic Queenslander should read this article.

The article explains that Mr. Nelson who intends to campaign for One Nation in next year’s poll will be joined on the hustings by his Thai wife and their teenage daughter. It said that this was a new development for One Nation which had first made its name by being critical of Asian migration. Did not Pauline Hanson say that “Australia is being swamped by Asians”? In the article, Mr. Nelson made it very clear that his fury on immigration matters was only directed at the Moslem bogy man.
The article said - and we quote directly: Despite witnessing his wife's difficult adjustment to a new culture and country, Nelson has no sympathy at all for the most recent targets of multiculturalism's critics.
For him, the woman he affectionately calls "little one" is not like the other new Australians, particularly Muslims, at the heart of the current national debate.”
"It's the ones that don't [assimilate] and live in their little enclaves that's unacceptable in this country," he said.
Now let’s get this garbage right. Moslems don’t assimilate. Well, tick. And as the rest of the article makes very clear, Mr. Nelson equates Moslem migration with rapes, ghettos and crime. Well, tick. However, if you assimilate other Third Worlders, particularly by marrying them and having kids with them, that is okay? Yes? This is an odd policy, a sort of bedroom-driven plan for social engineering. It’s a wonder the Human Rights Commission didn’t think it up – and offer special baby bonuses to facilitate the outcome.

Do we ignore the other negatives of immigration? Do we ignore the sustainability question: that is, whether Australia should take any migrants at all? Do we ignore the realities of Chinese immigration where massive swathes of the big cities are subject to takeover by horde-like agents of a foreign state, a group whose members are far more insidious than an Arab or Moslem rape gang?

It seems Mr. Nelson has ignored all that. He might also have ignored, if ever he understood it, that the alien does not assimilate: we Australians assimilate to the alien. Moslems are just a small part of the massive demographic change now swamping our country. Why concentrate on just Moslems?

Australia First has this radical idea that, to a certain small extent, the powers-that-be don’t mind too much if a few points are scored against the Moslems. After all, Aussie soldiers are (sadly) doing a job for the oil companies and other alien interests by being in Moslem lands and whipping up a little amount of anti-Islamism here has a purpose in keeping support up for these useless wars. And, vaguely out there somewhere, Islamist nutter networks still might pull off a terrorist outrage in Australia. People have to be alert to that too. Of course, this anti-Islamism must never go too far and branch out in a general criticism of immigration, multiculturalism – and more sharply, never, ever, condemn multi racialism. It must stay within strict limits and so the major parties can manipulate the public.

So, very conveniently for establishment needs, along comes some group which wants to raise up the spectre of unassimilated Moslems. One Nation wants to scream at them, rant at them, get votes from people who realise they certainly don’t fit; then One Nation cam parade itself as an independent party standing up for us ordinary folks who are peeved with immigration.

Yet all the while we have the anti Moslem crusade in operation, One Nation’s leading male members use their penises to assimilate nice Asian brides. Is Sigmund Freud having a joke on us? Are they overcompensating for their personal conduct? Did any other One Nation members do the Asian sex tour? Are they the internal base of support for this new leadership?

Are we missing something here? Is it the case that there is some game being played aimed right at the heart of those Queenslanders who wish to take a nationalist road?


Of late, as One Nation makes noises about re-registering as a party, it has been chattering about doing preference deals with the Liberal National Party, even saying publicly that its preferences elected a LibNat in the recent Federal Senate poll and that the LibNats should reciprocate in the future, that they should make an end to the ‘preference One Nation last’ policy. They are saying that their preferences in the electorate of Ashgrove might even elect the next Queensland Premier. The offer is: throw us a bone and we’ll be there for you. Who knows, maybe they will? But the drift is that One Nation is now calling itself a “conservative party”, much to the internal criticism of many sincere One Nation members who think this puts them on the same continuum as the LibNats. In a sort of way – it does. It’s the slippery slope to nowhere.

In this delusional politics, the One Nation leadership steers the party with rhetoric about traditional family values; a little flag-waving is engaged in;, and a civic identity politics is pushed (ie. it defends the idea of a national identity based only upon symbols, promotes that aliens become English-speaking and everyone gives loyalty to the constitution and our ‘allies’). As a conservative party, One Nation members will be told that they are bringing conservative voters out of the establishment parties towards a new hard patriotism. In truth, it is the establishment LNP which is quite happy to harness disaffected patriotic Queenslanders to One Nation and its forlorn quest to enter the mainstream as the leading conservative voice. That is an old con. Smart. Slick. Effective.

Rudyard Kipling’s Road To Mandalay v Rodgered Couplings Way To Go Thaigirlinthehay

There was a great poem by Rudyard Kipling called the Road To Mandalay, a nineteenth century muse that suggested some sort of true-love unions occur between Europeans and Orientals in the mists of cultural abstraction up the Irrawaddy River – or something like that. Possibly, that has happened occasionally just as much as the true members of those races might have scorned it. However, we have our doubts that unions founded upon alcohol in Manila or Bangkok bars, sex-tour romps where rancid old Aussies indulge their fantasies, mail-order shopping for a good housekeeper and compliant bed-partner and so on - make for much along the lines of Kipling’s muse. The public displays of these Rodgered Couplings that their little ones are just marvellously assimilated, don’t wash with us.

We have said that Freudian sex psychology is a factor here. We should say that the whole affair is politically corrupting. Not simply psychic overcompensation is involved when we witness anti Moslem screaming in place of a sober critical sentiment about immigration. Policy could become perverted – and not just about the matter of overseas adoptions. A different model of Australianity is put up there. Intermarriage as assimilation becomes a goal of the ‘patriot’. In the latest policy turn of One Nation, we can see that defence of Australia’s European identity is just not what the party is about.

Either It’s One Big Melting Pot Or It’s The Australia First Position

The position of Australia First is one that sorts out the muddle of One Nation. One Nation, going back a very long way and right to the start in fact – was always equivocal on what it meant about immigration from the Third World. Did it want to end it? And reverse it? Or assimilate what was already here? Did it seek to preserve Australia’s European heritage, or not? Certainly at least, at the very least, Mrs. Hanson said that Australia was running the risk of being “swamped” by Asians. Sadly, she gave no answer.

The mix-up has become one big messy melting-pot muddle. Now One Nation will rant against Moslems (and refugees too), but stay criminally silent about the very future of the nation.

We say that nationality does have a biological component. None of that involves, or ever could, any hatreds of other peoples or odd thoughts about how ‘superior’ or ‘better’ we white Aussies may be in respect of other peoples. However, it certainly includes our right to exist as a people sovereign over our Continent. It is also very clear to us that our very survival is challenged by mass immigration and alien takeover and that we will have to defend ourselves, our heritage,l our identity. As a matter of necessity, one big melting pot is not for us. It is odd to Australia First that not only is the melting pot the official state view, but it is now the position taken by some so-called patriots. We say: no!

It is time for One Nation members to take back their party if they can. Yet, when they do, if they do, they will need to look at how this muddle was arrived at. One Nation members might even think better and consider it is time to join Australia First.

16 May 2011

More on the Palerang success -- the story behind John McGrath's 6.1% result

Farmers, Truckies, Young Workers Targets Of The  Campaign

The Australia First Party campaign followed the political line of the party. It set out to target specific social sectors which we call Real Australia, or those parts of our community who have, in one way or another, stepped outside of the globalising norms of the present anti Australian economic and political system either to vote for something new or wage their economic struggles: some farmers challenged by the Murray Darling Basic Authority water legislation and who have opted to resist outside of the usual sell-out farmers organisations and the National Party; truck owner-drivers who are pushed to the wall by bureaucracy at the service of the big companies, citizens who have rejected the big parties and the Greens on immigration and young workers under the gun of contract labour and who see no party willing to say no. In ways specific to local conditions, these groups were the ‘targets’ of the McGrath campaign

Importantly too, Australia First publicly campaigned for People’s Referendum or  Citizens’ Initiated Referendum where it is the people who may propose directly local rules and ‘laws’. This resonated in chaotic Palerang.

There is another aspect of the Real Australia strategy. Because the party targets Real Australia for support, Australia First leaves the ‘mainstream’ people behind at this stage: sadly, the majority of our fellow Australians accept their lot and relish its rewards and comforts; they may grumble at this or that, but are psychically bound to a ‘comfort zone’ of political normality and so consequently support the candidates and parties that actually undermine them too. This truth is the truth and it is not changed by wishful thinking. These folks are not the agents of change at this point in time. Essentially, our strategy is the logical one: build where we can, with whom we must, at this crucial phase of party and community network construction. That same big-picture logic plays out at local level politics also.

John McGrath’s thirty five years of political experience, served him well in doing what needed to be done at a local level and he was witness to how all these sobering strategic facts work themselves out.

Hard Work Yields Results

John McGrath campaigned very hard in Palerang. John spoke at the three community meetings and was received well and his candidature and the party name were mentioned at length in the Bungendore Mirror, the Braidwood Times and community newsletters. The Queanbeyan Age (which covers a part of the council area) referred to him as “arguably the most controversial candidate”. Indeed, the latter paper reported on a growing community angst across Palerang at the “plan” to explode the Shire’s population by nearly 70% by 2036 – and noted what our candidate was saying. Had we tapped a growing consciousness? We think so.

The party mobilised some Australia First members in Canberra and in Palerang Shire to assist on polling day with how to vote cards. Most booths were covered. Ironically, in the only booth where we have no worker (the isolated area of Nerriga), we polled 20%. These same members earlier letterboxed streets and spoke with residents and gave the party ‘name-recognition’. John campaigned personally in Captain’s Flat, Burra and Bungendore, meeting local residents and soliciting votes.

A Statement Of Position

Despite the candidates against John McGrath all running as ‘independents’, there were party allegiances in the poll. One candidate had Labor Party connections and another is active in the National Party, whilst yet another had some Green input to his support-base. What is equally clear is that a layer of voters in Palerang have also made a statement of position in voting for Australia First.

This statement is an ideological statement of Real Australia. It is a rock base of support that will be expanded, but only by the party being involved directly in community politics, if the party markets itself as a protest and defence organisation for issues that affect the lives of people.

Underground name recognition helps Australia First. As the polling booth workers attest, our party has a name that travels by pubs, clubs, workplaces, cafeterias, truck-stops, from brothers to sisters and mothers to fathers. The thousands of people across different States who have voted for Australia First in the last three years carry the name of the party to other Australians and the same process has now commenced in Palerang Shire.

Australia First Party thanks all who assisted in any way on this campaign and we look forward to further electoral successes in New South Wales.

15 May 2011

Palerang Election Campaign: John McGrath For Australia First Polls A Solid 6.1%

Australia First Party candidate for Palerang Council, John McGrath, has won a solid 6.1% - 430 votes - in the by-election held yesterday (these figures are not yet final)

Once again, we have shown that there is a definite community and electoral clientele for our party. In the 2008 NSW local government poll, Australia First won 4% in the Sutherland Shire and some 5.67% in Blacktown City. In a Sutherland Shire by-election in October last year we crossed over the 4% line again. In June 2010, in the Hawkesbury City by-election, we won 9.4%.

If a full Council election had been held in Palerang yesterday, John McGrath may have picked up the last position; indeed, some of our polling booth workers conversed with the current Mayor, who himself picked up the last seat in Palerang in 2008 - with just over 3 % of the vote!

Mr. McGrath has signalled his willingness to contest Palerang in 2012, along side of Australia First Party candidates set to contest (and win!) - in a swathe of councils across the State.