Australia First (Queensland) will hold a State Conference on the Eureka Stockade Weekend

Australia First Party’s Queensland members and friends will convene in a State Conference over the Eureka Stockade weekend in December (December 3 – 4). The meeting will probably be held in Brisbane.

The party’s National Council considers a State Conference is urgent. As new members are recruited in Queensland towards the immediate goal of registering as a State party, it is necessary to set down a strategy and achievable goals. It is accepted that it is unlikely that the party will be able to submit its registration application prior to the next State election.

Of course, Australia First Party is conceived as far more than merely an ‘electoral party’ – such as the current One Nation. That means that the party seeks to operate outside of the electoral cycle as a community activist organisation, being involved in various people’s movements and through initiating patriotic campaigns of its own. It is in community action, more so than via electoral participation, that a party of the Australian People will be built.

Any reader interested in obtaining membership forms and other information should contact us as soon as possible.

Stay tuned for:
“The National Party In A Pressure Cooker”:
Jim Saleam Interviewed On ‘Katter’s Australian Party’ And ‘One Nation – Queensland’.

Jim Saleam Chosen As Australia First Party Candidate Against Scott Morrison For ‘Cook’ in 2013

The Australia First Party has nominated Dr. Jim Saleam as its candidate for ‘Cook’ in 2013. The campaign will begin within two weeks.

Scott Morrison is the Liberal Shadow Minister For Immigration and he holds the seat of Cook by a comfortable margin. The Australia First Party campaign will urge voters to preference-vote last against Mr. Morrison, regardless of who may win, to make the strongest point about the Liberals false line on refugees and so called asylum seekers. The aim is to punish Mr. Morrison personally for his deceit on the refugee question. This deceit centres on the Liberal rhetoric that it is somehow ‘hard’ on refugee matters and seeks to ‘stop the boats’.

Australia First Party has maintained consistently that the Liberal line is a pantomime to convince voters that there is a difference between Liberal and Labor on refugees and that the Liberals will ‘stop the boats.’ In truth, if we stop the boats by hiring the planes, the effect is the same. If we turn boats around to ‘process off shore’, the effect is the same. If we ‘process' in Malaysia or in Nauru, the effect is the same. Australia First Party draws no distinction between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ refugees; the hordes are endless and many are engendered by the very wars in which the Australian state has engaged.

In recent weeks and days the refugee question has been paramount in the news and public debate. Most of this discussion is pro refugee, pro ‘asylum seeker’ propaganda. It is our party’s intention to counter that propaganda by building a national people’s campaign against refugee admissions and to expel the so-called refugees. The electoral effort in Cook is part of that campaign.

Dr. Saleam said today:

“The Liberal Party will never repudiate the 1951 United Nations Convention On Refugees anymore than it will end immigration, or defend the Australian national identity. Mr. Morrison has the task of pretending that he is something he is not.”

Australia First Party has observed that many Australians fear that something is happening, that is a real threat to Australia and to their lives and livelihoods. But most ordinary Australians are unable to articulate it amidst the climate of misinformation and propaganda. The party has identified patterns and will campaign on them: the use of refugees to resettle rural Australia; the use of refugees as cheap labour; the use of refugees to culture-bust the Australian identity in guilt trips and the shaming of heritage; the appalling economic privilege granted to refugees; the use of refugees to disguise the other immigration programs that are changing Australia’s demographics.

Dr. Saleam concluded:

“This campaign will not be a regular campaign. It is only partly an exercise in election participation. In truth, I am putting on the agenda the biggest single issue in Australian political history and I will do something unusual when I make a mass question of the book that defines our dispossession: The Camp Of The Saints (1973). Churches, Greens, Trotskyites and capitalists all combine to seek the breaking open of Australia’s borders, the culture busting of Australia’s heritage and our land’s recolonization. For Mr. Morrison, it’s all about the cheap labour the refugee hordes will provide. I am going to be engaged in educating a section of the public as to what the refugee / asylum-seeker threat is about. Our party has campaigned in the Adelaide Hills and other places against the scourge of refugee migration. I am proud to raise the slogan: ‘Expel The Refugees’.”

For further enquiries:

How You Can Help

Australia First frankly needs all the help it can get. The path of Australian nationalism has up to now been a stony one and at times a lonely one. Those of us who have been here for a while would welcome fresh activists.

We must, however, ask those who seek to join us to prove their genuineness. There is nothing more common than the infiltrator, the brave young Communist or race-mixer who wants to join a party like Australia First in order to “expose” it.

Leftists really do believe that we are evil and that it is right to disrupt our meetings, disrupt our communications, publish any private remarks we might make that can be portrayed as unkind, ungracious, cruel, cynical, or dishonest. Even Eric Butler of the League of Rights, a hidebound old conservative if ever there was one, was regularly portrayed as a monster of iniquity by the columnist Philip Adams and others.

And ordinary people believe this. It is a human weakness to shy away from the pariah.

It is also a weakness of unpopular people to act as they are expected to act. We have to be constantly on our guard against behaving as our weak compatriots and our philosophical enemies would expect us to act. Obviously we cannot turn ourselves into plaster saints, without human feelings, without the ability to relax. But even when relaxed we must in some sense be on guard, as a soldier in a lonely base must be always on guard.

So we welcome fresh activists, but they have to prove themselves over time. If you want to help, contact a web address, telephone a number, or write to a Party office. You may be invited to a meeting. You will certainly be asked to send money if you can. You will almost certainly be invited to meet someone and begin the process of finding out whether and how you can help the organisation. But don’t expect to meet everyone straight away, and don't come to us looking for thrilling, illegal escapades. If you persist you will almost certainly find friends among your fellow activists, but you won’t find cheap excitement. That is for the other side.

‘Go Back Where You Came From’: SBS Propaganda: Is It Also A Hoax – And An Opportunity? (Bill Rezac)

SBS screens this week a three part series ‘Go Back Where You Came From’, a documentary which shows a group of Australians being confronted (sic) with the living conditions of so-called ‘refugees’ in the camps of Asia and Africa and with their difficult journeys (sic) to come to Australia.

The program is pure propaganda.

Originally, Australia First members Jim Saleam and Perry Jewell, were also approached to participate. As could reasonably be expected, the tentative invitations to these nationalists were not pursued. At all points, the true purpose of the producers was to choose persons who were likely to be ‘remoulded’ by a type of hands-on live-drama re-education.

So it was.

At no time does this program really explain that refugees (sic) are often people who have declined to take up arms against their alleged oppressors, that the conditions they may find themselves in are in one sense of their own making, what economic refugees may be as opposed to political dissenters, that many consider permanent flight of better value than a fighting return, that many have social practices repugnant to Australian society, that many of these people may also hate and be envious of those who possess wealth and territory – and that overpopulation and New World Order wars and other ethnic based strife are the chief underlying causes of many outpourings from the Third World.

We are witness then to an attempt to brainwash Australians to accept that they are guilty people if they lack compassion.

In fact, for most Australians other than the liberal minded, there is a feeling that this brainwash should be resisted but they don’t know how.

The Case Of Raye Colbey

The star of the show, Raye Colbey, is described as a lady from Inverbrackie in South Australia where a refugee detention centre has been founded. Mrs. Colbey goes on the SBS organized jaunt overseas and learns about her ‘hate’, learns of compassion and so forth.

Reports passed to Australia First in South Australia, suggest that Mrs. Colbey has family members involved in support campaigns for so-called refugees.

Mrs Colbey has been a victim, if she really is a victim, of psychological manipulation. We note how quickly the usual media suspects have been to publish a public recant from her of her ‘former’, racist (sic) views.

Schools Will Get The SBS Doco  But ‘The Camp Of The Saints’ Will Be There In Reply

A report was given to Australia First in New South Wales that the program will be shown on DVD to high school students as part of a propaganda offensive to soften students’ attitudes to the refugee invasion. This offers an opportunity for the new Eureka Youth League and Australia First Party to fight back.

Both organisations will surely seek to make mass awareness of the antidote: The Camp Of The Saints, the 1972 novel which explained the psychosis the dominant groups of our Western societies faced with a refugee invasion of European lands – a work composed before there were any mass refugee outpourings from the Third World. This revolutionary novel posited that overpopulation and poverty, war and envy, would propel masses towards the vision of a better life. It then pilloried the false-moralities that would justify to certain Westerners the very destruction of their own societies.

 For the curious:

http://www.archive.org/details/CampOfTheSaints

This book should be studied by all Australians who need a counter-morality to the SBS type propaganda about to invade our screens.

Intensify The Struggle: ‘Expel The Refugees’

Australians need to act against the army of churchmen, Greens, Trotskyites, lawyer-advocates and others who play morality games over the refugee invasion and who mobilize daily to beat down Australians.

The morality is on the side of the Australian people, who under the challenge of mass immigration and now refugee invasion, have opted to resist.

Our party will repudiate the United Nations Convention On Refugees (1951). Ultimately, we will expel the refugees! But we make this very, very, dark promise: the traitors who have decided to give away our birthright will pay for the assisted return, if necessary of hundreds of thousands of persons to countries of origin – by the public seizure of their assets.

It has come to this.

Warn your friends and children against the latest SBS propaganda.

A Nationalist Commentary: Bob Katter’s New Party – And His LNP Critic

Bob Katter has founded a new party – the Australian Party. He intends to stand up against the decline of Australian agriculture and manufacturing via policies imposed on our country by the globalist mythology of ‘free trade’. He is labouring hard to acquire both a Federal registration and a Queensland State basis for this party. That is to the good in that it will promote public discussion around urgent issues. Yet, it also has other aspects which we must address because they impact upon the Australian nationalist politics of Australia First Party.

Australia First Party notes that Bob Katter was once part of the Liberal-National coalition until he seceded almost a decade ago. In many ways, Bob yearns for the ideology and politics of the former Country Party which did, in the days up to 1971, stand for the protection of Australian industry and agriculture. That was, after all, actual Australian state policy until this protectionist  position was overturned by the two party blocs and their paymasters after that time. Since then, globalisation and free trade have been the holy writ from above. Essentially, Bob has a sound notion, one which puts the Australian interest on manufacturing and agriculture ahead of the global economy, but he has wedded it to the forms and sentiments of yesterday; his position is one that does not of itself seek an independent Australian economic system – and it must come to that. The Katter solution is to ‘balance’ the competing interests, whereas the enemy globaliser recognizes no such other interest at all. This misconception shows up in the politics of the new party. Bob is nostalgic for an electoral solution to the imposed-compulsion of globalisation, one armed with a brand-product long on sentimentality, but short on fire in the belly. A new Country Party, whatever it calls itself, goes nowhere, because it would not build a national resistance movement to globalisation, a people’s movment for challenge and change.

It is noted that the Australian Party does not style itself a nationalist party, nor has it offered any real view of Australian population policy, immigration or the refugee invasion. That may be deliberate.

How should nationalists treat the Katter party? WE take stock of relevant facts. It is an electoral organisation and it will compete (in part) for some of the ground Australia First Party will cover. Of course, our party strives to be far more than an electoral structure, but it must still compete in the market place at election time. The Australian Party is not styled as a new version of One Nation (as Bob has put it) and it will serve by default to block the attempt by a new One Nation leadership to revive the party in parts of rural Queensland. Surely it will also familiarise a political market with economic nationalist ideas, train them if you like – for the future, when they can pass into the movement of nationalism.

Australia First Party in Queensland has its own job to do and we will not be sidetracked from it. We must cast a long eye on the Australian Party as it mobilises in the bush for we note it is symptomatic of a slow burning revolt, at first conceived in parliamentarist forms, but one destined to deepen as the multinationals grab at Aussie farms and water and try to establish our State as just another mining quarry.

There is a finale to this story. Bob Katter’s action received some unfriendly sarcastic dismissal-type criticism from a certain Mick Pattel, Liberal National Party (LNP) candidate for the State seat of Mt. Isa. It was very telling. In 2008, during the lead-up to the National Transport Shutdown in July 2008, Mr. Pattel appeared at a meeting in Toowoomba, representing his own transport action association and all armed with a call for “action”. On the platform he appeared with two members of the National Party who were trenchantly criticised by a member of Australia First Party for trying to get on the bandwagon of truckies’ fury against over-regulation, contract labour and fuel prices; our member said the Nationals were planning to betray them and he said these words just as Mr. Peter Schuback of the Australian Long Distance Owners’ And Drivers’ Association and later 2010 Candidate for our party for the Senate – was thrown out into the street.  Mr. Pattel swore he was there for the truckies and had his own independent agenda; after all, he handed out membership forms for his (abortive) Southern Cross Party. It was all crap. Mr. Pattel and his association and his ‘party’, were all put ups for the Nationals, part of what nationalists called the “satellite structures” put in place around the Liberal National parties to sidetrack people and protect the system from attack. If such a man should criticise Bob Katter, then it says a good point for him.

Of course, a good point does not mean that Australia First Party will be lining up with Bob. We have made it clear we will not. It just means that Australia First Party will maintain its independence and initiative to develop the bush fight-back against globalisation. We hope Bob Katter will contribute to that.

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.

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