Australia First Queensland

Action Meeting to End CSG Mining in Queensland

2012-01-27T07:38:00.000+10:00

The following has been received from the National Aussie Movement for the attention of all Australia First members in or able to travel to Toowoomba:

Farmer after Farmer

Community after Community

River by River

Farmland by Farmland --

FALLS TO THE POISONING OF COAL SEAM GAS

ALP and LNP TOO CORRUPT on $100 Billion Budget Handouts and the Fear of Ramifications to CARE.

The Health of Our Fellow Aussies is now jeopardised with hordes of Chemicals from CSG.

Chinchilla and Ackland Under Siege.

WILL YOU ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE?

National Aussie Movement calls on Farmers and all Aussies to attend an action meeting on

Sunday 19th FEBRUARY

at the TOOWOOMBA CITY Celtic Club

at 12:30 pm

ACTION NOW FOR NO CSG IN QLD

Here anti-CSG groups, National Aussie Movement, Australia First and others will speak.

There will be a chance to meet all the groups, speak and witness the destruction from GasLand to Victims at home!

And of all to DEMAND COLLECTIVE ACTION as Part of the Aussie Farmers Resistance

The time for talk is over. The time for Action by Farmers with our Help to Stand their Ground IS NOW

Email: nataussie1@hotmail.com or ring 0404376850

For AF in the Toowoomba Area: we will design flyers for you to distribute

ACTION NOW!

Just Shout "Racist!"

2012-01-25T13:46:00.000+10:00

Weblink (if the above image is not rendered -- may be a problem for some email subscribers):
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DujjGgULAhE/Tx9IaUVKPpI/AAAAAAAADDc/g9m4cFpnQPI/s1600/shout_racist_640.jpg

Three News Stories to Make Your Blood Boil

2012-01-23T22:05:00.000+10:00

A vicious racial attack -- as in the majority of such cases (contrary to media reporting) the victim was white and the perpetrators were racial aliens intent on demonstrating their power in our lost and foundering nation:
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/bashed-teen-speaks-of-terror/story-e6frg143-1226250240756

Westpac has sacked 188 or more Australian employees -- in itself, a bad thing -- but to add insult to injury, the sacked workers are required to train their Indian replacements! The arrogance of the anti-national corporations such as Westpac takes place on a scale so grand, you "could not make it up" (as the saying goes):
http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/sacked-westpac-workers-kicked-in-teeth/story-fn7kjcme-1226250247164

But arrogance is a widespread commodity these days and those who are colonising our land at the behest of anti-national corporations and anti-national politicians find that the "up yours" attitude begins to come very naturally -- the second they set foot upon our shores:
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/wheres-my-visa-and-my-house-the-first-question-asylum-seekers-ask/story-e6frfku0-1226224511992

Well folks, there you have it. This is what we are up against.

What will you do? What will you tell your grandchildren when they ask what you did in our nation's time of need?

Perhaps you will tell them: I supported Australia First. I joined the fight when Australia needed fighters.

A Matter Of Credibility - And Mine Just Got A Whole Better! The Fall Of Eddie Funde And A State Perjurer Reveals A Life On ‘Witness Protection’ As A Case Against Me Unravels

2012-01-18T14:19:00.000+10:00

Jim Saleam

Political trials usually have a habit at biting their organizers on the metaphoric arse. So it is unfolding with the political trial run against me over twenty years ago.

It is a matter of record that I was convicted in May 1991 of organizing on January 27 1989, a shotgun attack upon the home of Eddie Funde, then Representative to Australia of the African National Congress (ANC).

I have always denied any involvement in the affair and have authored an Internet book-legal-submission on the subject – Pardon Me: The Anatomy Of An Australian Political Trial at: www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/pardonme/index.html

For years now, I have noted the scoffing of the professional ‘antifa’ (anti-fascists) at my assertion that the case against me was a political police conspiracy. These antifa, who often assert the existence of state conspiracies and political police dirty tricks ops when they are playing at being anti-system lefties, seem quite happy with the idea that the same thing just didn’t operate against me. They use my conviction as proof of my utter perfidy. The mind boggles why they question nothing. Is it too hard? Or doesn’t my story ‘fit’ with the line they want to run?

Other players can get dirty too. Certain persons who have called themselves ‘patriots’ - and even ‘nationalists’ – have also run with the state script. In loading me with a garbage crime, they seek to slither away as ‘clean-skins’, ready to enter the political mainstream as normals who eschew any notion of violence, and as they put it, leaving me and those like me - in our squalid gutter. Such charm and such moral courage do they show.

A couple of years ago, I was interviewed by a journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald. When I told the bloke that the political policeman who ran the Funde case against me (orchestrated it?), fell at the ‘New South Wales Royal Commission Into The Police Service’ way back in 1997, it was clear that he knew. Certainly, he hated the idea that an anti racist hero could fall. Yet, he plain baulked when I told him that this officer, Superintendent Neville Ireland, just didn’t go down, but was pushed by my information given to Commission investigators. The Royal Commission showed that Ireland was a rorter of the informant’s fund, a perjurer, and a ‘protector’ of a sexually perverted Justice of the Supreme Court. I reminded the journalist how Ireland would pick the old pervert up from railway police offices after he’d been caught ‘flashing’ in public toilets – and take him home with no charge. He could see that I regarded Ireland as typical of the political police. I could see hatred on the face of this intrepid journalist. After all, Ireland had passed into anti racist folklore as the man who ‘got Jim’. Sadly, some of our more informed anti racists (sic) know the truth and conceal it, ‘Jim got Neville’.

Now it gets better, a lot better.

The Ignominious Fall Of Eddie Funde

I was in the dock at Sydney’s Central Local Court on December 4 1989, to hear Eddie Funde give evidence against me. Yes, he was home on January 27 1989. Yes, the house had been shot at and so forth. Yes, he headed the ANC in Australia. As he was leaving the court-room, I leaned out of the dock and said to him: “Mr. Funde, I had nothing to do with this attack upon you.” He nodded. He probably knew. The whole thing was bad theatre.

After the New World Order forces overturned the ‘white minority government’ in South Africa, Funde went on to become an important man in the ANC regime which took its place. He rose through the ranks of the South African Broadcasting Commission (SABC) to actually control it; he went on to become the Ambassador to Germany (2008 – 2010). After years of subtle attacks from anti corruption fighters in South Africa (Noseweek, July 2004), and after being implicated in the sheltering of a fraudster at the SABC who ran off with 2 million rand, Funde was accused in 2010 of a massive fraud – some 4 million rand misappropriated via contracts with private companies, courtesy of Sentech, the state owned signals controller in South Africa,. Funde was the central player in the fraud and received shares in a beneficiary company. The evidence seems compelling and Funde should end up in prison.

See the Mail And Guardian’s article:

http://www.techcentral.co.za/funde-molobela-linked-to-dodgy-sentech-deal/18317/

Eddie Funde was, as I shall describe here in greater detail shortly, the darling of Australian liberal and leftist ‘anti-racists’ in the 1980’s and a lynchpin figure in the entire ‘anti racist movement’. When his house was shotgunned, he stepped up as a martyr of racist (sic) and fascist (sic) violence, the valiant fighter for a colour-blind South Africa – ad nauseum. I think the shotgun crime did him a favour. It was a funds-raising bonanza. If I had ever organized this nonsense attack upon Funde, it sure back-fired (pun intended).

We have come full circle. It can only leave the proverbial bad taste in the collective mouth of the anti racists, that it will ultimately become Funde’s turn to stand the dock, a sad representative of a regime mired in corruption and scandal (and I should add parenthetically, anti-white hatred).

I cannot say that I do not enjoy the schadenfreud. Essentially, the fall of Funde is indicative of the collapse of a myth. In the 1980’s, the ANC could do no wrong according to liberals and leftists. Its sullied status now – just makes my trial smell that little more odorous. The fall of Funde cannot reverse the verdict against me; but rather, it just takes the pseudo-moral blather out of the case.

That is important. As I write, I observe that the very history of the Funde shooting is being rewritten by the Slackbastard anarchist group via Wikipedia and other outlets and thanks to other anti racists with their toilet-wall Internet smearings and assorted public gossip-mongering. It is even said that I tried to assassinate the man! Assassinate? The prosecution case made no such claim. Yet, as time moves on and myths can be rewoven around the case – why not? And who would know?

It is the fall of Funde as a moral symbol (sic) that just brings the entire affair back to hard earth. To put it in the vernacular: Eddie Funde is revealed as a miserable grub, a parasite on his own people and party and a man unworthy of any attempt at statue-building. Bad luck for all the so-called anti racists / anti fascists and other state connected propagandists! Good luck for me and other comrades from those days of frame-up!

Witness Protection For State Perjurer

It should not be thought by the reader that I was convicted at my trial by any real evidence. Let’s be quite clear about that. There was certainly no confession. There was no scientific evidence. There was no civilian witness who could point the finger. All that the prosecution had was the evidence of two men who claimed to be my accomplices. They seriously contradicted themselves and they contradicted each other about key elements of the story line. The prosecution also had the stitch-the-case-together-evidence of the discredited Neville Ireland.I need not delay the reader by explaining why the guilty verdict issued forth; you can read all about that elsewhere.

Let’s go right to the current point: one of the main (‘accomplice’) witnesses was Jason Roderick Frost, now 44 yrs and by our report, not doing too well. Unlike his co-offender, Frost never wavered in the allegation that I had been involved in the crime even if he couldn’t get his story truly straight. For my part, I have often pondered over what his deal with Special Branch was and how it worked. What benefits did he receive for his evidence? I have exposed some of that in terms of the lenient sentencing on other offences and so forth, the sort of usual stuff, but the truth has the bizarre twist I would expect in any Australian political trial.

We have just learnt that Frost resides in New Zealand on Witness Protection. In 1997, Frost disappeared from view in Australia and appeared nowhere on any radar since until he was found recently living in New Zealand. It was an ‘accident’ that he was located. Nothing more on that will be said here, because the state’s agents observe whatever is said.

It is also reasonably clear from the disclosed circumstances that Frost is not finished with the world of police-work (if I can use such a phrase). It may be that he does some clandestine job for New Zealand’s police. IT probably involves the activities of so-called “youth gangs”.

Certainly, the Australian authorities, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the NSW Police, assisted him greatly to remove himself to New Zealand – new passport, new identity, housing, employment. That requires ‘pay-off’ and Frost may have been providing it. Perhaps long hours in a dull factory job set up for him was not rewarding enough for a man who had the bare bones of particular political knowledge? Perhaps undercover work pays a little better?

I have no doubt that the Australian state’s security, police and prosecutions’ agencies would say that Frost was removed to New Zealand to be protected ‘against’ me, against the possibility that I might do him harm. I could say in reply that Frost had to be protected ‘from’ me. His co-offender had already said things to me that contradicted the state version of the Funde crime. That’s a fact. The state could not afford that Frost ever blab things which might contradict the trial script. If I ever communicated with Frost, what might he say? As he said in trial evidence about his story: “bits and pieces come back to me” and “it was drummed into me at court” when being sentenced and so on. The telltale signs of scripting were clear then and the state could take no chances. Indeed, when Frost disappeared from view in Australia in 1997, the NSW Special Branch had just been dissolved amidst the findings of corruption by the Royal Commission. His protector, Neville Ireland, a man who had even obligingly driven Frost to weekend detention in the years 1989- 1991, could no longer look out for him. Other action was necessary.

Of course, being on Witness Protection does not prove that Frost was generally untruthful at my trial, anymore than Funde’s corruption can establish he was not a crime victim in the past. I must say too that Ireland’s proven corruption and bad character, while it undermines a part of the prosecution case, does not demonstrate that the evidence of my supposed accomplices was necessarily - perjury. It just suggests he could have scripted them and did other things to make the charges stick.

However, in the matter before us, we must read Frost’s history in reverse, right back to the point in March or April 1989 (and how we know that time-frame is a story for another time) when Ireland determined that Frost may have been the shooter in the Funde crime

In May-June 1989, Ireland proceeded very carefully, having three one-on-one meetings with Frost at his home discussing, well – something, several weeks prior to Frost’s formal statement which incriminated me. They had a couple of more-formal discussions “after court” where, according to Frost in fact, he was threatened with an “attempted murder” prosecution and according to Ireland, no such thing was said.

Frost was treated lightly and given 18 months periodic detention for the Funde crime. Two other sentences of three months gaol for other offences, were later converted to bonds on appeal. Years later, Frost was placed in public housing and it seems he was given assistance to obtain employment. Did he receive any money? Time will tell on that one.

The New Zealand transfer operation somewhat demonstrates the importance to the state of my Funde conviction. I have said for years that these convictions were important parts of the state’s anti racist drive at the time. The verdicts cannot be surrendered under any circumstances.

The compliant and subservient attitude of Jason Frost to the Special Branch may properly have a basis in the field of psychology. I have read Frost’s psychological reports tendered at the time of his sentencing on the Funde crime. The transferring of allegiances from one group to another has difficulties, but is consistent with the ‘type’ under review. A reward, care and official concern for his well-being, are operative factors. The likely current role of Frost in undercover work would have nascent origins in his suborning by Special Branch as a state witness. The final pattern of rewards shows that reward was present at the start, that the relationship was extraordinary at the start, that Frost would say anything at the start to gain acceptance and ensure his survival.

If Eddie Funde is ultimately labeled in history as a grub, then Jason Frost takes the award for pathos.

The ‘Anti Racist’ Network And The Saleam Prosecution

I have long concluded that my prosecution for the Funde crime was part of a tangled web of activities related to the 1980’s traitor class war from above against the Australian people, a class-war designed to internationalize (then globalize) the Australian economy but with victory achieved in the name of liberal myths such as openness, a Third-World-uplifting free trade system and anti racism. Essentially, I believe there was a political economy element in the prosecution and it is just no wonder that I ‘got mugged’ by the political police.

The frame against me was a long time in gestation. At the time of the Eddie Funde crime, I was the Chairman of Australian National Action (ANA), or as it was simply called - National Action. The organisation had, according to Prime Minister Bob Hawke, caused Australia a reputation problem in Asia. It had damaged investment and trade. He denounced it twice: first on Perth radio in October 1988 and again in Federal Parliament in March 1989.

In other words, National Action was doing its job. It was standing up for Australian independence. However, the inter-linkages of state anti racism (read: anti Australianism, read: whatever undermines the Australian identity and independent status, economically, politically etc) saw it embrace an anti South African policy in tandem with its commitment to economic and demographic Asianization. It was a two front war. The anti South Africa line enabled it to assemble an army of community fighters so it could create a pseudo moral climate conducive to Asianization. Brilliant stuff.

Unbeknownst to National Action, in 1988 Hawke privately asked Funde whether Australia should proceed on sanctions against South Africa without the support of Margaret Thatcher’s government. Funde urged him to enact sanctions. Clearly, Funde was part of the Australian government’s network for foreign policy decision making. He was considered a veritable diplomatic-person. Anyone who struck at Funde was striking at the Australian state.

In November 1988, it was announced too that the Human Right Commission would host a ‘National Inquiry Into Racist Violence’ after the lobbying efforts of innumerable anti racists, many of whom claimed to be “victims” of National Action violence (sic). The Inquiry was an example of anti racist McCarthyism and ran throughout 1989 whilst the Funde prosecution was incubated. It created the requisite pseudo moral atmosphere for repressive action. I have no doubt the things were linked and I have found one or two such links.

Consider John Brink, an anti apartheid activist whose house was firebombed in Sydney in mid 1984. The National Inquiry Into Racist Violence ‘witnesses’ ascribed that crime to National Action. Brink was originally a South African who had been chairman of the Liberal Party Pretoria Branch and a friend of Albert Luthuli, who had burnt his ‘pass’ on 26 March 1960 when ‘staying in the home of the Brinks His case became a sensation. Soon after, Brink went to prison for 93 days, going on a hunger strike and sharing a cell with Joe Slovo, later head of the South African Communist Party. He was a big fish in anti racism.

Then, there was another émigré, Colin Tatz, who had claimed to be a victim of anti-Semitism in 1940’s Johannesburg. After ‘watching friend after friend after friend go down like ten pin bowling pins on all sorts of extraordinary charges of treason’ (as he explained it) he left for Australia in 1961. In Canberra, Tatz became researcher for a short-lived Committee for Human Rights in South Africa. He sought to convince cabinet ministers that many émigrés deemed ‘communists’ under the South African 1951 Suppression of Communism Act were not communists, and a few such people were later granted entry. In 1984, his house in Sydney was shotgunned. This crime too was ascribed to National Action. Tatz was also a big fish in anti racism.

Essentially, it was a case of blame it on the Kellys. National Action was accused by various anti racists and anti fascists of the Brink and Tatz offences – among others. Eventually in 1989, it became payback time, with powerful forces pushing for a successful prosecution of those involved in the Funde crime. The idea that this crime could have been the work of an odd fellow like Jason Frost, just a bloke out on a lark, would never do. The Funde shooting had to be a dark racist plot and dark racists had to be found.

Of course, National Action did know that Funde had arrived in Australia with government support. He was assisted to arrive in Australia by high profile anti racists who were later very active against National Action in Adelaide.

I rely here (and as I have above) upon the informative article by an anti-nationalist, Peter Limb: The anti-apartheid movements in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand. I will freely quote from it, paraphrase and adapt its information.

By 1981, Jim Gale, Irene Gale and others succeeded in transforming Campaign Against Racial Exploitation (CARE) into a pro-ANC body and the national office shifted to Adelaide. CARE emerged as the effective national centre, with the United Nations’ Special Committee on South Africa’s blessing, representing Australia internationally and active in the Asia–Pacific region on anti apartheid matters, hosting also major conferences on Namibia in 1985 and 1989. Its leaders increased pressure on government for an ANC office. Gale, who knew Foreign Minister Hayden through the ALP, bombarded him with pleas for assistance. Canberra was suspicious about linking openly with supposed liberation movements, but lobbying and visits by key ANC leaders, notably Mavis Nhlapo and Andrew Molotsane, swung the case. Sonwabo Edwin (Eddie) Funde arrived in Perth on 5 December 1983 as the ANC’s Chief Representative in Australasia and the Pacific and he opened a mission in Sydney in January 1984. He used the offices of Community Aid Abroad for a while and later took offices at Trades Hall; as early as that year, Funde was able to have some input into draft ALP national policy on South Africa.

Funde worked on a wide front and was successful in building broad networks of support. In his first week in Australia, he met liberal South African emigres and befriended NSW state parliamentarian Maurice Keane. On 10 December the African Liberation Trust Fund, aimed at financially aiding the office, was launched by prominent ALP, church, and union leaders Don Dunstan, Richard Wooton, and Cliff Dolan. By his second week, Funde had visited Melbourne and met ACTU and church leaders, federal and state ALP parliamentarians, and NGOs. Wide media publicity was secured. ANC Support groups came into being in Sydney and Melbourne. The following week Funde met Foreign Affairs officials, who reiterated conditions of acceptance for the opening of the ANC office: the ANC was ‘not granted a special privileged status’, and government would ‘not provide financial assistance’. Funde had to rely on donations from supporters.

Again, we can see the high-powered individuals rallying around Funde. I say again: anyone who struck at Funde was striking at the Australian state.

Eventually, later in the 1980’s, the Australian ANC Support Committee (ANCSC) based in Sydney brought together figures from church, union, women’s, media, business, and legal sectors as well as the ALP and Democrats. Former ACTU leader Cliff Dolan served as president, Helen McCue as secretary. McCue was central, but she was invisible to National Action.

McCue, who began as a United Nations worker oversaw the foundation of Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad (now Union Aid Abroad APHEDA) by the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 1984 and was able to channel funds from unions and the Australian government to agriculture, health, and vocational training projects in many countries in Africa. In other words, the support for ANC terrorism and anti white racism was channeled via non government structures (but with covert support).

Soon after, APHEDA meetings were held with Eddie Funde about how to get assistance for anti South African elements, in particular those refugees in Zambia and Tanzania associated with the so-called liberation movements. APHEDA focussed initially on refugees and liberation movements.

In 1988, after the discussions with Eddie Funde McCue made her first trip to Lusaka where she met with the exiled ANC leadership, in particular President Oliver Tambo and Treasurer-General Thomas Nkobi. With Nkobi, she mapped out a strategy for a program of support to the ANC.

I note that in September 1989, Tambo visited Australia and conferred in detail with Foreign Minister Gareth Evans. Was the Funde prosecution discussed between Evans and Tambo? Undoubtedly, it rated a line or two. The Australian state would prove its credentials by prosecuting a ‘racist leader’ (sic) for anti ANC violence. Yes, of course it was discussed. I was charged with the Funde crime two weeks later.

In March 1990 prior to going to South Africa, McCue suggested to Nkobi that the Australian Government, and in particular Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, would be keen to make a significant gesture of support to the just-released-from-prison Nelson Mandela at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. McCue recommended the ANC ask for $20m of development assistance to support the so-called transition to democracy. Eddie Funde, Mohammad Tickly, Nkobi and McCue sat down in Lusaka and framed a development request. The Australian Government agreed to this proposal and Gareth Evans was able to make this announcement to Mandela when he first met him.

That took place in October 1990. I was due to face trial then, but the prosecution sought an adjournment lest I fail to get a fair trial, given Mandela’s presence in Australia. Such generosity. But it shows the close linkage of my trial and foreign policy considerations.

The Funde case was part of the rich tapestry of anti racist effort at the time, one organized aspect of it, something which highlighted their strategy. By 1989, there was a plethora of groups, all interwoven and at their peaks, integrated into state action. The nationalist magazine, Audacity, identified a number of anti racist organisations in the years around 1984-5, all of which were linked through to politicians and state players and broad community networks. National Action was alone in discussing anti racism as a community movement which required an activist response.

It has been said by one academic critic that the National Action made a major mistake in targeting the anti-apartheid movement; he said it was tangential to the basic nationalist message of the group and the ensuing struggle sidelined it. I disagree with that assessment. In point of fact, much of Australia’s anti-racism was expressed through the prism of the anti-apartheid movement. While National Action waged many campaigns in the community (chiefly around immigration, refugees and economic nationalist questions) it would invariably be the same gamers at anti apartheid who would organize against the group. In any case, National Action waged struggle against the anti apartheid movement.

Another academic said that National Action had a “considerable intelligence facility”. That was true. It collected considerable material on anti racists and similar dross and certainly identified many involved in the anti South Africa campaign. However, it is also true that it missed totally the shadowy and complex interactions between the anti racist movements and actual highly placed state players. It failed to identify the leaders of the movement at the highest levels and detail the actual support being rendered to the ANC by the state. In that regard, National Action failed to adequately understand the array of forces levied against it in 1988 – 1989, a factor which played a role in the defeat of the group before it could develop a mass influence.

The material advanced here tends to show that the Funde crime existed in a significant context. This too suggests that the verdicts against me will not be surrendered without legal bloodshed.

Endtime

Political trials must preserve their rectitude. They are showy things, where not only are convictions produced to imprison alleged villains, but great moral lessons supposedly demonstrated in action. In my case, the state wanted to show its cleverness and moral position to the public; it had solved a “terrorist” offence organized by a group of thugs who had terrorized Sydney for years, a crime aimed at an anti racist icon. To those of us in the movement of national resistance, we were supposed to become cowed. Our leaders were to be imprisoned (and hopefully broken) and the secret methods of the political police were there in enough relief to teach us how useless were our efforts and how shallow the commitment of some of our troops. The problem, for the organizers of political trials is not simply that the evidence must never come to be challenged, but that the moral quality of the prosecution’s actors never be exposed; they must never be seen as feet-of-clay, crooks, liars and manipulators. One by one, the witness-actors and the organizers of the trial, have fallen.

My task is to push the edifice right over. In New South Wales in the last thirty odd years, there have been a number of political trials – the Ananda Marga Three, the Croatian Six, the Hilton Bomb Trial and my trial. All were flawed exercises involving (in part) the same core actors in the Special Branch apparatus and in the police. All feature odd central witnesses who were paid off in some way or other to testify. The first three have been shattered in fact or in the court of public opinion. It is now my turn.

The troika in my case, Ireland, Funde and Frost, have lost their personal credibility. In the political trial scenario, what they lose, I gain.

I am resolved to move the affair on and break the convictions, not simply in my personal interest, but in the interest of the nationalist movement. For those who still insist I am the guilty one, I look forward at their ranting responses to this article.

Our Position Regarding the Katter (Australian) Party

2011-12-23T06:34:00.000+10:00

Members ask: what is our attitude to Bob Katter's "Australian Party", specifically with respect to the upcoming Queensland election?

This was a matter discussed at length at our recent State Meeting and is deserving of clarification.

Supporters of the Australia First Party, and readers of this blog, will be aware that we have specific criticisms of the Katter group.

We are very clear about the policies and positions that we believe to be critically important for Australia's future. Our members and supporters would not be part of Australia First if they were not similarly clear that the ultraliberal, globalising order simply has to go if our nation is to have any future at all. As such, we do not compromise on what we firmly believe to be matters of vital principle. This does not mean we are inflexible, merely that our focus is clear. We have a job to do.

There are some policies espoused by the Katter group that worry us. In particular, we do condemn the Katter view that immigration should be continued to increase Australia’s population. This can only be done with Third World migrants who cannot be assimilated to Australia without Australia being assimilated to them. Immigration has had its day. To say otherwise is dangerous and foolish and is a fundamental difference between us.

However it is also our view that the supporters of Katter's party, and most likely Katter himself, have only honourable intentions to see rural Australia put right to the advantage of Australia. Any differences in our platforms are, accordingly, due not to differences in our devotion to Australia, but in precisely how we understand the nature of the problem our nation faces. It is our view that certain troubling Katter policies are most likely due to a perception that the problems we face are merely problems of policy which require "tweaking".

We know differently. Our problem is an alien ideology imposed on our nation by very malignant and entirely self-serving forces, none of which have our nation's interests at heart in any way. Whereas we know this ideology has to be deconstructed and broken before change is possible, those who believe in "tweaking" and fine-tuning the system naturally do not have a clear, unified approach but instead are liable to believe in a patchwork-quilt of policy positions that each independently seem reasonable. This does not make them people of bad conscience in any sense whatsoever, and, without surrendering our principles in any way, we can certainly work with such people for the common interests of our nation.

On a practical level, due to the constraints of the electoral registration process, it is unlikely that Australia First will have completed a successful state registration application before the Queensland election, an election which rumour has it might well be called early.

We are not "wreckers". It is not our intention to see Bob Katter, whatever his faults, fail and the Liberal/Labor system succeed at his expense.

As is already our stated policy, we encourage independents to challenge the parties of the system at this and every election. It is not a stretch to include in this definition those parties, such as Katter's, which we fully hope will be proved to be genuinely independent of the system. Australia First therefore intends at the next election to endorse any number of candidates such as we might find upon investigation to be worthwhile and who have Australia's interests at heart. It is likely we will also recommend a vote for Bob Katter ahead of the Liberal/Labor system as part of this.

As we always remind our supporters and voters in general, there is no point whatsoever in a vote for Labor or Liberal (LNP) at this or any future election. Do not be taken in by LNP rhetoric to the effect that a vote for LNP is essential to get rid of Anna Bligh. This is their scam, a long-running trick worthy of any sideshow hustler. Don't fall for it.

At the upcoming Queensland state election, we feel that despite the real problems with Katter's policies, his members and supporters are good people whose hearts are in the right place. Accordingly, we recommend that a vote for the "Australian Party" is an acceptable alternative on this occasion.

Update: Christmas Party

2011-12-16T22:04:00.000+10:00

Earlier this blog carried a notice regarding a Christmas party organised by a supporter of the Australia First Party in Brisbane. As an update, the following has been received for publication and is reproduced accordingly:

ATTENTION QLD NATIONALISTS AND AFP MEMBERS!

CHRISTMAS PARTY ON 23rd of December Friday 6pm Venue to be notified on call

Please Come along and Clash Celebrative Cheers!

Ring 0404376850

We would like to commend the supporter in question for his efforts in organising this event and hope he will be rewarded with a good attendance and positive 'vibe'. If you are free on the date in question, please do join him in what promises to be a fun event and a night to remember.

A Christmas Event

2011-12-16T11:47:00.000+10:00

A supporter in Brisbane advises that an informal Christmas social event is being organised and has asked that details be posted on the blogsite.

The event will take the form of a dinner party at a quality restaurant. Plans are flexible but the event may be held on either the 23rd or 24th, depending on what best suits those planning to attend. There is a possibility of holding the event in either Brisbane or Toowoomba, again dependent on the wishes of attendees.

The organiser hopes to see Toowoomba, Brisbane and Gold Coast members and supporters for what is planned to be a fun, informal night of pre-Christmas festivities and a chance to build a good social atmosphere and create camaraderie between local supporters. An excellent way to meet other like-minded people in your area!

For details, please ring 0404 376 850.

Web poll: do you want judges to dispense with juries?

2011-12-15T17:33:00.000+10:00

Yet another attack on the fundamental right to trial by jury!

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/12349035/judge-wants-to-cut-juries-from-complex-trials/

Today Tonight is running a web poll on this question and we encourage all readers of this blog to stand up for our rights and register a clear vote on this important question.

You can vote by following this link: http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/polls/popup/-/poll_id/64204

The Globalising Order, Once Again, Teeters On The Edge Of Collapse

2011-12-15T10:23:00.000+10:00

Editor's Note: the following was published in an internal document in November; while events described are not now so recent as when this was written, the information contained here is still of significance and accordingly is reproduced here in its original form.

- - -

Dr. Jim Saleam

The pathetic spectacle of Julia Gillard telling the G 20 Nations Summit to get tough on certain European countries in order to salvage globalist capitalism was worse than a case of the mouse that roared. It was also an example of the fear that has gripped the little sister of the leaders of the so-called western world. All is not well in the fairytale ledger books of the bankers and the multinationals. Like three years ago, the system now teeters again on the edge of collapse.

The big alarm was sounded as the Greek state, facing bankruptcy, might default on its financial obligations. Obligations? And if Greece defaults, the Italy, then Spain, just as Ireland and Iceland all but did last year and the year before.

For the ignorant in their McMansions in suburban Australia, all this is far away and hard to understand. Yet, some Australians do understand – some business-people pushed to the wall by overseas competition, some farmers pushed off their land by the mining multinationals, towns threatened with water takeovers, students threatened by overseas student influxes. All these things are part of globalisation and some Australians have taken the road of resistance. Still, the great mass do not understand. Experience teaches and it is sure to show that the big tale of permanent economic progress and expansion in a globalised economy is also one big lie. It was an evil lie too that has killed off our farms, factories, and businesses and endangered our heritage as Australians. McMansion land opted out of it all for the dollars. These folk are our people too, even if we can be more than a little unhappy with their indolence or their self-interested greed, their veritable resignation from being Australian.

Right now, eyes are riveted on Greece.

For those of us who are students of politics, Greece presents an interesting model. The borders are cracking open and immigrant criminals flood the streets. If you resist you are called by the alien media a “far right extremist”. Unemployment rises. People don’t get paid. Businesses fold and anarchists try to incite street riots. The government rules by threats of force. All parties reveal themselves as parties of the regime, all bow to globalist money.

Into the maelstrom has come the Greek party ‘Golden Dawn’. I publish here an extract from a Greek newsmagazine. This is what is coming for Australia. For my part I wish the Greek party Golden Dawn the political victory they deserve:

“In July, reports in the Greek press citing information by the police and E.U. border-control organization FRONTEX revealed that neighbouring Turkey is about to release approximately 10,000 Asian illegal immigrants that were apprehended in Turkey en route to the European Union via the Greek-Turkish borders. Since the issue of unconstrained immigration from Asia has become a focal theme in Greece and in conjunction with the recession in the economy, these reports alarmed quite a few pundits that predict a "hot winter" within the Greek urban centres, due to the further increase of illegal aliens in the country lacking employment and shelter.

Dr. Nestor Kourakis, professor of criminology in Athens, in a recent university survey revealed the extent by which criminal rates have affected the daily lives of Athenian citizens. According to the survey, 85.1 percent of the residents in the centre of the city have been victimized by criminal action, and 76 percent state that they are afraid to live in their neighbourhoods. Moreover, 70 percent state that the police cannot do anything to assist them, and more than 50 percent say they should take the law into their own hands. The statistics reveal a situation that contains elements of social implosion not far away. The vast majority of the participants in the survey blame illegal immigration as the primarily factor for the criminal rates.

Far-right groups started patrolling in certain regions in Athens, the most notable one named "Golden Dawn." There are also many incidents of small-scale rioting and violence between different ethnic groups and attacks against immigrants that have surpassed the level of spontaneous violence and seem to be organized by competing centres of local criminal power aiming to control parts of the city's centre for reasons mostly related to narcotics contraband and the accumulation of capital through illicit means.”

The Ties That Bind -- Guest Post

2011-12-01T12:41:00.000+10:00

The 'Australian Financial Review' is a daily newspaper, not perhaps for those in the big end of town, but for those who, like this reader, would like to be.
     It adopts the usual trendy-left editorial stance of daily newspapers everywhere in Australia, pretending to be unaligned but treating any sort of principled position (such as nationalism) with contempt.
     On the inside back page (one of its opinion pages) on 17th November, the 'Fin' published a piece entitled "It's Time to Spell Out the Ties That Bind," by one Josh Frydenberg, who is described as the Federal Member for Kooyong, party affiliation not reported.
     Mr Frydenberg is on about the visit to Australia by the (negro) head of state of our esteemed ally, America. He starts by recounting our shared history, being on the same side in every stoush since World War I, win or lose.
     "For both nations," he lets us know, "democracy is our beacon, commerce is our creed and we share a fundamental belief in the power of the individual" - as long as the individual isn't a self-respecting human being, I suppose.
     He goes on to point out, quite rightly, that paying for "security" in the "Asia-Pacific region" is getting to be expensive for the American taxpayer.
     The article then makes a reference to the latest free-trade deal, before drifting off into frothy generalities.
     This reader is buggered if he can figure out what the 'Financial Review' means by it.
     Is it a warning that the Americans are apt to leave us in the lurch? Does it mean that we had better toe the American line more carefully in the dangerous days ahead? Or is it telling us that maybe we'd better suck up to China a bit, too?
     Maybe, in light of the supposed new defence deal whereby a small number of American marines are apparently to be stationed in Darwin, it is just one more bit of dust kicked into the air, in a futile attempt to confuse the Indonesians and the Chinese about what we would want American troops for.
     Australia pays a heavy price for American protection. The protection is there, no doubt about it. But like the protection of an alcoholic father or a mentally ill mother, it comes at a cost. We have to send troops to every ill-conceived American policy initiative that includes shooting at somebody. We have to accept sick American cultural values like multiculturalism and race-mixing. In this, of course, we are no different from Europe - although Turkey, Israel, Taiwan and Japan apparently do not have to accept racial pollution as a price of American protection. Maybe there is a difference there somewhere.
     Anyway, the story is accompanied by a nice piccie of Barack and Julia strolling arm-in-arm away from a couple of flags - no prizes for guessing which ones. Is there symbolism here? Are they leaving Australia and America behind and strolling into a Chinese future? Buggered if I know.

Farm And Rural Land Up For Coal Seam Gas Mining Destruction

2011-11-26T09:18:00.000+10:00

http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/coal-seam-gas-by-the-numbers/

Ferals

2011-11-22T08:16:00.000+10:00

Guest post by: Peter Schuback

So now they want to punish the parents of children that do the wrong thing and make the parents pay for their childrens’ crimes, what a bloody good idea.

What would have been a better idea was for the bloody do-gooders to stay the hell out of trying to tell parents of children how to bring up their kids. These dumb bastards were the ones that informed the kids that they had rights. That they could take their parents to court or get them charged if the parents gave the kids a bit of a clip under the LUG (ear).

When I was a kid I had a bit of respect for the law and for other people’s property. Why? Well because there was a detective sergeant named Banister that would give us a bloody good flogging if we did the wrong thing. He was a great guy and one of the few good coppers I ever met.

So over all we never got up to much mischief and if we did it was all good, clean fun.

Then along came these do-gooder bastards that thought they knew better and told us how to raise our kids. I was lucky, my seven are great people and have done well for themselves but I never took any notice of the dickheads that tried to get me to raise my kids by sparing the rod and spoiling the child. Well you clowns, you are the ones that have taken the rights away from the parents and now the younger generations have no respect for anyone or anything. You caused the problem and now you want to punish the parents that were forced to bring up their children the way you clowns wanted.

Children are much like untrained animals and they have to be taught and guided to learn how to live and respect other people, the law and most of all themselves. If they are let run wild you end up with ferals that have no respect for themselves or other people or the laws of the land. So if anyone should be made pay for the crimes of these uneducated wild little feral bastards it should be the do-gooders that took away the rights of the parents and the politicians and law enforcers that stood over the parents and enforced the wishes of the do-gooders on the parents of the children.

Australia First State Meeting -- Update

2011-11-20T07:56:00.000+10:00

Readers of this blog may be aware that a State Meeting for the Australia First Party is scheduled for:

9:45am - 4pm on Saturday 3rd December

Some readers and supporters will naturally wish to attend and have asked for full details to be published.

After discussing the matter with the organisers, the decision of the Party is that for security reasons (at least one threat has been received already) the venue of the meeting should not be published on the blog.

Members should have already received a flier with all the necessary details. However it is certainly not our intention that this meeting should be "members only". Far from it. We want as many as possible to attend, but we must also be careful and therefore anyone wishing to attend the meeting needs to be either a guest of a member or must contact us directly. You will understand that we will not be able to give this information to simply anyone who asks, but those who are "known to us" will certainly be assisted. All subscribers to this blog who subscribed before today will receive a personal notice shortly.

For details regarding the venue, please contact: afpqld@hotmail.com

When China Rules the World

2011-11-15T11:52:00.002+10:00

Author Martin Jacques speaks on French TV station France 24 about his book "When China rules the World: the Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World."

Video: http://www.france24.com/en/20101211-martin-jacques-author-journalist (11 minutes)

And meanwhile, the Chinese takeover of Australia continues:

Chinese Expansion Fears Revealed

It's not if, but when, China owns the world

Chinese migrants top Britons for first time

Toxic food imports

Mining threat riles Felton farmers

Australians have every right to ask our Federal and State governments what measures they will take to protect our identity, our environment and our future from the growing threat of Chinese Imperialism. The parties of the system will continue to sit on their hands, but Australia First must and will take a stand on this menace to our national interest.

Discrimination against Australians -- in our own land!

2011-10-22T20:36:00.000+10:00

Check out the following advertisement, placed on the internet classifieds site Gumtree:

http://sydney.gumtree.com.au/c-Jobs-accounting-banking-finance-Accounts-Clerk-Part-Time-Homebush-Area-W0QQAdIdZ321926758

The advertisement, for an accounts clerk, specifies:

Must be fluent in Indian dialect – Hindi, Tamil, Telegu and or other Indian Language is an advantage

Wonderful!

How much more of this must we endure?

Wake up Australia -- we are being displaced. Will you still vote ALP/LNP at the next election? It is important that we all understand very clearly (and make others understand) that the so-called major parties have been, for many years, complicit in this active policy of "reverse" (sic) discrimination, open borders and the ever-present obsession with the "free flow of labour and capital".

Of course, it had to be so. The poor confused devils in the old guard of both "major" parties, not to mention many in the One Nation Party, Bob Katter's "Australian" Party (it is no such thing -- just read their policies, in particular point 21 of their programme which reveals their stance in favour of mass immigration) and various other civic nationalist groups, simply don't understand the problem. Yet it is very simple. The reason we have a multicultural policy today is in part because the powers-that-be want to create a society with no identity, which suits their programme perfectly; but it is also -- and this must be acknowledged -- because the former policy of assimilation was an utter failure, and in fact did fail before multiculturalism was ever thought of. As much as anything else, multiculturalism represents the typical political response to any problem: find the line of least resistance and follow it. This is exactly what has been done. When assimilation failed -- as it has failed, and is now catastrophically failing in countries such as France, which famously rejected multiculturalism and stuck with assimiliationism to the bitter end -- it led to an ethnically divided population, as indeed it always must. Faced with this, it has always been easier for politicians to simply accept the situation rather than address the problem.

So what does the future hold? For the time being, more of the same. A policy to import labour on a vast scale, irrespective of origin, must create a multi-ethnic state. Nationalists have long predicted that the result would be a society in which businesses, politicians and public people of all types are under constant pressure to conform to the combined interests and tastes of the many ethnicities present within the broader society and in particular, to those dominant in their local area. The link posted above is just one example among a large and exponentially growing body of evidence in support of this prediction.

What is the solution? We must reject the lie that mass immigration benefits our society. We must change how we think, how we vote, how we consume -- always with a view to our long-term interests, not just the next five minutes. And above all else, we must remain true to our identity, our people and our nation.

Australia First is ready to accept this challenge and we call on you to be part of the fight.

You can now subscribe to this blog by email

2011-10-18T17:52:00.000+10:00

We have been experimenting for the past few days with an email subscription option for this blog and are pleased to announce that this feature is now 'live'.

To begin receiving email updates, simply enter your preferred email address in the form on this page and click the 'Subscribe' button to enjoy regular updates from Australia First Qld Branch. You will only receive updates when new posts appear on this site, so please be aware that your subscription will not begin until the next time the blog site is updated.

The service we are using also permits you to help spread the word by including a customised 'forward to a friend' link within each email bulletin and we urge you to use this any time you receive an update that might be of particular interest to someone in your contacts list. Please do not 'spam' people however, by sending these forwarded messages to all and sundry -- it will be most helpful if you are selective about sending these emails to those who will be likely to appreciate them.

Please note that if you change your mind about being a subscriber, you can easily cancel your subscription from within your email account, simply by clicking on the 'unsubscribe' link that will also be included in every email.

Have your say on "asylum seekers"

2011-10-15T07:35:00.000+10:00

Show the ABC what real Australia thinks about the boat invaders!

ABC News Radio has regular polls on their website. Today's question:

"Are you in favour of asylum seekers being released into the community after initial health and security checks?"

To have your say, follow this link:

http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/supp/poll/default.htm

The ABC has for too long perceived itself to be an impenetrable fortress for the globalist, "open borders" world-view. By regularly visiting sites like the one above and voting in these polls, we can begin the process of taking back these bastions of anti-nationalism and allow the voice of real Australia to be heard once more.

Let's give the ABC and its politically correct supporters a rude awakening!

BBC Speechless As Trader Tells Truth: "The Collapse Is Coming...And Goldman Rules The World" (Youtube)

2011-10-11T09:25:00.000+10:00

Shocking report on sex slavery in Australia to air on ABC TV tonight

2011-10-10T16:40:00.000+10:00

The story below is from ABC Radio's AM programme and heralds a disturbing report to be aired tonight on "Four Corners" (ABC 1). Naturally, the ABC will not discuss or highlight in any way the obvious ethnic dimension to the problem -- that would go against the diktat of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism. We urge nationalists to watch tonight's broadcast and see for themselves the true nature of a multi-ethnic state.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3335636.htm
Audio: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/am/201110/20111010-am5-sex-slaves.mp3

Sex slavery prevalent in Australia

TONY EASTLEY: There are hundreds of legal brothels operating in suburbs right across Australia but elements of the industry have been tied to human trafficking and sex slavery.

Tonight Four Corners exposes the criminal underworld that's meeting demands for Australia's big sex industry.

Bronwyn Herbert reports.

BRONWYN HERBERT: The trade in sex trafficking is growing internationally and Australia is cemented in this business.

BROTHEL WORKER: I give you some information about the shop.

REPORTER: Yeah.

BROTHEL WORKER: Tonight we only have Asian girls working - is okay for you?

REPORTER: Yeah I'll meet them, yeah.

BROTHEL WORKER: Okay, the price is half hour …

BRONWYN HERBERT: Hundreds of women say they've been forced to work in Australia as sex slaves.

A woman known as "Rose" moved to Australia to study English at a private language school.

But soon after arriving in Melbourne, she received a phone call from her agent in China - a woman she knew by the name of 'Taiwan Linda' telling her she now had a debt of more than $20,000 and would have to work to pay it off.

ROSE: I went blank in my mind. I was really shocked.

BRONWYN HERBERT: The testimony was provided after a police raid at a Melbourne brothel known as Madam Leona's.

ROSE: I decided to try and leave the flat right then. I moved toward the front door and Kevin physically stopped me from leaving by using his body and arms to stand in front of me.

KATHLEEN MALTZAHN: Down the road on the other side of Brunswick Street there is a brothel that hasn't had any trapping to my knowledge but the owner of that was convicted of child prostitution a number of years ago. Beyond that in Smith Street there is a place that has closed down now but at least one person I know, one woman I know was trafficked there.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Kathleen Maltzahn is an anti-trafficking campaigner and believes the cases the Federal Police have uncovered are only a fraction of the problem:

KATHLEEN MALTZAHN: No one's really looking, no one's really counting in Australia.

BRONWYN HERBERT: The trail of evidence from many women trafficked to Australia - led Four Corners to the Chinese island state of Taiwan.

Justine Wang represents Taipei Women's Rescue Foundation.

JUSTINE WANG: For that Mrs Chen's case I think she already traffic at least hundreds more than 100 women.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Justine Wang says the woman known as "Taiwan Linda" plays a big role supplying women to brothels in Australia.

JUSTINE WANG: She hired lawyer in China to help those women pass the language test and then apply for student visa and then using their student visa to traffic women into Australia and force them into prostitution.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Pei-Yu Huang is a prosecutor in Taiwan. He says at least 60 girls have been trafficked from Taiwan to Australia but he says Australian police haven't requested the evidence:

PEI-YU HUANG (translated): I don't know how Australia and Taiwan can collaborate on this case but I think it is good if we can share information especially about Yao Yao (phonetic) because she trafficked Chinese girls to Australia and although we have evidence in Taiwan it's out of my jurisdiction.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Chris McDevitt from the AFP warns clients of brothels be warned.

CHRIS MCDEVITT: If they knowingly go into these situations and knowingly use somebody who is subject to slavery, they can find themselves at the end of a criminal charge, and I would have no hesitation, and indeed would relish the opportunity of locking anybody up that was actually involved in that knowingly.

TONY EASTLEY: Chris McDevitt , the commander of the human trafficking unit with the Australian Federal Police, ending that report from Bronwyn Herbert.

The full story tonight on Four Corners, at 8.30 on ABC1.

##

Rip-off on fuel prices

2011-09-29T15:12:00.000+10:00

Are the people of Australia stupid or just plain lazy?

We are being told that we are paying more for our petrol and oil-based products because of the very slight decline in the value of the Australian Dollar. If you bother to do the research on oil prices and the value of the Australian Dollar, you will determine that you are being screwed by both the oil companies and the Australian Federal government. The oil companies are ripping us all off with the sanction of the government. Yes, there was an investigation by the ACCC but the parameters were set so the ACCC could not come back with any other result than the one they came back with. The government is allowing us to be screwed so they can get more tax out of every item that is oil-based. Every dollar more we pay for our oil-based products is an extra 10 cents the government gets in GST. Go do a bit of research and look back to 1966 when we first went decimal. Look at the price of a barrel of oil against the value of the Australian dollar against the value of the US Dollar and the cost of a litre of petrol every year since that time and you will see that you are being screwed. If a barrel of oil is selling for US $89 and the Australia Dollar is valued at 90 cents against the US Dollar you should be paying no more than 89 cents per litre at the bowsers. Do the research yourself and find out just how much you are being ripped off for. The price of a litre of petrol determines how much you pay for nearly every item you buy every day, so the flow-on factor to the government in extra GST is huge. The extra cost for transport alone is phenomenal and that is without the extra cost for the raw materials, production, distribution, manufacturing and all the other costs that have been added because the price at the bowsers is being held artificially high. Write to your local state and federal members of parliament and demand a royal commission into petrol prices.

Peter Schuback

The Liberal National Party In A Pressure Cooker: Jim Saleam Interviewed On ‘Katter’s Australian Party’ And ‘One Nation – Queensland’.

2011-09-27T14:27:00.000+10:00

Australia First Party (Queensland) has conducted this political interview with Dr. Jim Saleam of the party’s National Council. Nationalists need clarity as the political struggle to create a people’s party in Queensland intensifies:

AFQ: Australia First has on its hands a real fight for ‘political space’ in Queensland with Katter’s Australian Party and One Nation. Do you agree with that and what’s the solution?

Jim Saleam: True. The political market for parties espousing any sort of pro-Australian position, let alone nationalist economics and politics, is now cluttered. As we move on with getting the numbers to register ourselves as a political party in Queensland, many ordinary folks might say – ‘why another party?’ Yet, we are not being sectarian. These other parties say some of the things we say, but they have one over-riding DNA-marker that says they are not us. They both represent the Liberal National Party membership in a pressure cooker. That means two things: firstly, they are really Lib-Nats under stress and like water subjected to heat they turn to volatile steam, but if circumstances change they go back to water – and secondly, that they are political satellites of the Liberal National Party; they give some ideological and political loyalty to it despite critical words and might go back there under certain circumstances. The answer for us is an independent politics that stresses not only the people’s interest but raises issues and fights for things that the system parties have betrayed and fought against – national independence, European-Australia, popular democracy, an end to free trade and globalisation. The Lib-Nats are just one face of the same globalist politics. They are not the ‘better’ alternative to anything.

AFQ: Satellites?

Jim Saleam: This is not a difficult idea to grasp. And it is a revolutionary tool to understand how politics works. A satellite structure is one that shares many ideological and political positions with a system major party. It might mouth off a bit more, or talk about something the major party won’t because the major party is ‘floating’ policy options first through the mouth of someone else. But they corral all the support that has moved out from a major party on certain critical grounds into a type of holding pen. There they can froth and scream, but seldom do they become completely independent. They ‘preference’ backwards at election time; they demand the major party ‘reforms’ itself; their policies reflect that they are a ‘tougher’ version of the major party. If the major party is clever (as it is), it’ll make a few noises in the direction of the satellite, holding out the idea that there is big support left inside them if the satellite will stick around. On occasion, the major party will appear to ‘adopt’ the programme of the satellite (it doesn’t say too much for the policy if it can), frustrating the satellite but still holding out the delusion that the system can be ‘reformed’. The satellite also attracts new and genuine people who continue to orbit around the major party. So, we think that both the Katterites and One Nation are basically satellites. Do not even take their words for what they say; look at what they do. And remember one qualification: some of the recruits to a satellite are indeed fair dinkum in every way and may seek to move on as political circumstances develop. The Liberal Party’s management of One Nation for the last 15 years has followed the satellite pattern.

AFQ: What do you specifically object to in the policies of Katter’s Australian Party and what do you support?

Jim Saleam: I can’t understand why Bob wants to keep immigration high. Immigration has had its day. He has this vision of settling northern Queensland – which we could do by getting people to move from the big cities – but he imagines that immigrants are the answer. Sustainability for Australia is not part of his ethos. But more importantly, I ask – who are these immigrants? In fairness, I rang Bob’s office and was told that Australia should skew a little more towards “ancestral” sources, but then I was also told that there’d be no discrimination on race. That means – Asia, South Asia, Africa, wherever. In my view, this multi-racialist perspective poisons the Katter party. It means that many good points in his programme – like protecting our agricultural produce from overseas competition and saving our farmers from the mining multinationals, are overridden. Immigration is a key element of globalisation. Of course, in the short term many ordinary folks won’t see the downside and rally on the positives. I understand that. They are desperate – but the denial of heritage and identity will tell in the end. We will make sure that it does. We will pick up the pieces from what will be the contradictions of Katterism.

AFQ: What do you specifically object to in the policies of the One Nation party and what do you specifically support?

Jim Saleam: One Nation has some policies that are nationalist-inspired. Like us, they object to free trade, espouse the defence of Australian farming and manufactures and they stand up for a type of patriotism. Many people are attracted to it on that basis. However, One Nation has made it very clear in Queensland that it is working to elect a “conservative government”, “where we have some say”. The bottom line is that they will have no say and they have sold out to the Lib-Nats. One Nation is an electoralist party. That means everything they say and everything they do is tailored to electorates and electoral policy and running in elections, meeting only between elections to plan more elections and so on. The idea of a continually activist party, rooted in the soil of the community and conducting popular struggles and initiatives – is not for One Nation. Ironically, the reason they don’t do well in elections – is because they are electoralists!

I say further One Nation has been taken over by a group of people who have changed its stance on immigration. These people want a policy that will change the European basis of the society. They don’t care where immigrants come from as long as they ‘assimilate’ (whatever that means). We say openly that there are some source-pools we don’t want – and whom we don’t wish to ‘assimilate’. It seems too that the only gripe these new One Nation leaders have is with Moslems and this game of jumping up and down about Moslems is also played by the Liberals. Of course, Moslem immigration should never have taken place – but if there is any immigration threat to Australia it is the one from Asia. The new One Nation leadership is just sucking people in to a politics that is not independent of the Lib-Nats. We call on One Nation members to take the road of nationalism – and find Australia First.

AFQ: Do the Katter party and One Nation have any potential to radicalize?

Jim Saleam: Yes. Some of the members have a decided potential to go beyond the limits set for them. Farmers in the ‘Shut The Gate’ movement and similar forces might look to Bob because he’s in parliament and can be a voice for them. But of course, Bob doesn’t stand for popular struggle. He just seeks to channel it electorally. In our case, we see struggle as paramount and electoral activity as second. Nothing will be decided in elections. Indeed, our perspective is that elections are really something that we can use to intensify the people’s struggle in Queensland against the mining multinationals and other foreign corporations and their visa labour. The One Nation members may make a good on-the-ground cadre for branches to organize these types of struggles; once they see One Nation as a ‘conservative’ vehicle bound to satellitize them permanently, they can and should rebel against the leadership. In freeing themselves of electoralist rubbish, they can become activists in their communities, even leading popular initiatives. That is far more productive than sitting around waiting for the next election.

AFQ: Where will Australia First party (Queensland) be in twelve months?

Jim Saleam: Certainly, we will create a registered party to avail ourselves of all the advantages that come with it. I understand from my dealings with your State committee, that the party, if it can get registered in time, will contest the local government polls in September next year. I say this is a far more useful road than the regular State electoral contest. Why? Because on a proportional system, as operates in many councils – we can win. By winning council seats, we will ensconce ourselves in our communities, our councillors being not just the regular councillor, but permanent paid activists who can direct and encourage popular initiatives and people’s struggles.

I believe that Australia First will grow in Queensland. Patriotic people are increasingly looking for something with depth. We are a party with a defined Australian nationalist ideology. This is based upon the Australianist traditions of our original 19th and early 20th century nationalist, labour and patriotic cultural movements, the people who put forward the very idea of Australian Identity and who made Australia the social laboratory and envy of the world. We have a political theory that identifies how power operates in Australia and how we must win Australian independence to establish a real direct democracy. We are a historical party, not something dreamed up with a platform to contest elections. We will begin the process of attracting younger activists. The future of Australia First is bright and we will be the nationalist party Queenslanders can trust to win on the ground, what they have been waiting for since the defeat of Hansonism.

AFQ: Thank you Jim for your time.

Wandoan Mega Mine

2011-09-15T11:33:00.000+10:00

The following report was received from a concerned Australian:

Nobody I've met in Toowoomba knows about the Wandoan Mega mine -- 32,000 hectares -- the biggest thermal coal mine in the southern hemisphere!

We are literally facing the life or death of ourselves and all future generations if we, the people, don't stop it.

You should be aware -- and deeply concerned -- that these stories are NOT being reported in the Queensland media -- and Regional Councils like Toowoomba are not even telling their residents.

Mining of this magnitude will destroy our great state of Queensland as we know it -- all to save two broken and busted Governments.

In 20 years we will be a slag heap, our waters will be polluted, our Artesian Basin sucked dry -- and we will have nothing left to feed our people.

Please LOCK THE GATE and prepare to stand up and fight -- our farmland and our way of life is worth it.

Virtually the entire Darling Downs is now covered by coal permits of one form or another.

The South Burnett will be next, as well as the Brisbane Valley.

* Ambre Energy has a mining lease application over 2000 ha of Felton Valley, as well as around 70,000 ha under exploration permits all the way from Toowoomba to Warwick.

* Newmont has a mineral development license over 13000 ha south of Felton.

* Acland (New Hope mine) is currently in Stage One which covers 2,2000 ha. By Stage Three -- with the Environmental Impact Study now awaiting rubber-stamp approval -- it will include an additional 5,400 ha, giving the mine a total area of 7,400 ha. New Hope Coal owns all the farmland almost to Oakey showground, and east out to Goombungee.

* Other mining leases in the East Acland area amount to an area around 40 sq km.

* Haystack Plain: 13,000 ha of iconic Darling Downs farmland. Tarong Energy -- which is wholly owned by the Queensland Government -- owns the Mineral Development Licence for the coal deposit under the Haystack Plain. Tarong Energy representatives have stated that they have more than enough coal to service the Tarong Power Station for its entire operating life (25+ years) without using the Haystack coal deposit. They are, however, now reviewing the asset with the intention to sell the Mineral Development Licence to another company. The Haystack coal deposit is export quality coal and is likely to be exported.'

* There are exploration leases or applications for leases over the entire towns of Warwick, Highfields, Meringandan, Gowrie, Kingsthorpe, Pittsworth, Oakey, Gowrie Mountain, Hodgson Vale and Cabarlah.

* There are also applications for bauxite mines near Crows Nest and nearby Geham.

* There are bauxite exploration permits for 7,000sq kms of Qld, focused around Kingaroy and Pittsworth in particular.

* There is a permit granted for a coal mine in the Brisbane Valley only 5 kms upstream from Somerset Dam -- Brisbane's major water catchment area.

* The Qld State Government, the Toowoomba Regional Shire Council and a local developer are currently forcing through the biggest noxious and dangerous toxic industrial estate ever seen in regional Australia on the famous old grain and thoroughbred farm Wellcamp Downs -- only ten minutes from the centre of the city. At 600ha, it is double the size of the heavy industrial area for the entire city of Brisbane. The site -- a famous grain farm -- is an old koala habitat crossed by a creek that flows into the Murray-Darling. When the south-westerly winds blow in winter, noxious fumes will settle on the roofs of Toowoomba -- and straight into rainwater tanks.

* Despite the fact that Toowoomba is a Garden City with an economy based on farming, tourism, education and retirees, there have been no environmental studies on the site or buffering to protect nearby farms. One of Australia's leading Urban Planners has described the proposal as "simply unbelievable -- a blight on the landscape".

* There are now exploration leases or applications for leases over almost every major grain farm, thoroughbred farm and beef farm on the Darling Downs.

The Joys of Diversity?

2011-09-07T16:13:00.000+10:00

"GANGS carrying guns, samurai swords and knives are terrorising doctors and nurses at a suburban hospital."

"Warring Asian, Sudanese, Somali and Pacific islander gangs had taken their battles into the emergency department."

Read the full Herald Sun report here.

The comments on this story show the rising tide of "multicultural awareness" in our community. There is now no doubt that people are waking up to the reality of the multi-ethnic state.

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

2011-08-28T18:20:00.000+10:00

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

2011-06-28T00:34:00.000+10:00

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

2011-06-26T10:28:00.000+10:00

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)

2011-06-22T19:19:00.000+10:00

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

2011-06-13T20:39:00.003+10:00

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

2011-05-31T16:07:00.017+10:00

(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

2011-05-18T20:23:00.000+10:00

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

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

2011-05-17T16:38:00.000+10:00

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.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/one-nations-surprising-new-face-20110225-1b7y9.html

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?

Conservatism

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.

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

2011-05-16T18:02:00.000+10:00

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.

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

2011-05-15T12:28:00.000+10:00

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.

What’s the Use of Supporting Australia First?

2011-04-19T18:37:00.000+10:00

Politics is a funny game. Most people who care at all feel politically helpless. We think we are pawns in the game, sacrificed at the whim of the players. Certainly the ordinary person in any civilized country has very little faith that his concerns matter.

The other side of this is that there is an upper echelon whose wishes matter a lot. These are apparently those who can work the system. Otherwise, we can only conclude that the system is mindless, benefitting no one.

It seems most probable to this writer that the system benefits corporate interests. These corporate interests are not merely the large shareholder corporates whose capital is privately owned: they also include power centres such as the mass media, the education industry, the legal industry, and the internationally connected secret service world.

Those of us who take an interest in history have a pretty clear idea of the power structure in the Middle Ages: it consisted of the warrior nobles and the Church. The nobles kept the mass of the population in subjugation by force of arms, and the Church assisted by deceiving them.

This writer suggests that these two classes, the soldiers and the priests, are still around, it is just that they go by different names today, and the priests teach different doctrines.

One of the most important doctrines is that of universal equality, which is interpreted to mean that we as Australians shouldn’t defend ourselves.

This is not a very friendly message to the average Australian. You don’t matter: it’s all those foreigners who through no fault of yours have got themselves into desperate straits who matter. The government of your country exists not to serve you but to keep itself in the good graces of foreign powers, who happen to want you to take in many, many desperate foreigners.

And you can’t vote against this, because both the parties agree on it.
Who are the people in these parties? In the popular imagination, they consist of many branches, consisting of like-minded people who discuss politics and make suggestions to those at the centres of power, the paid politicians.

Those of us who have been inside the system know it isn’t really like that. Party branches do exist in some places, but many of them consist largely of very old people who are fighting class battles of the past. There are some younger people, but they are mostly unscrupulous careerists. The party structure is a dead structure, maintained to provide the illusion of democracy. Anybody who tries to make a difference by joining and supporting the established political parties is doomed to disappointment. They, like the government, are not there for us.

The flip side of this is that a rotten structure should not be very hard to knock down. Politics is a funny game: a great part of applying political pressure is knowing where and how to press, what string to pull. For historical and public-relations reasons, people are still allowed to vote, and the votes are still validly counted: we saw this when, to the horror of the Establishment, a double-digit number of Pauline Hanson’s supporters were elected to the Queensland Parliament a number of years ago. Third-party activity is a danger sign to the rulers: it tells them that their two-party fraud is not fooling everyone.

Third-party activity often does not get very far, because of ineptitude by the third-party group, or because what they want is inherently insane, as with peaceniks in the past, and the Greens today. This is the challenge for us in Australia First: to conduct ourselves and our political activities in such a way as to achieve the best result we can for the Australian people. It is a great responsibility. The media will be a deadly enemy: they will try to exploit us as they exploited Pauline Hanson. The Labor Party and some of the Liberal-Nationals will condemn us in pseudo-moralistic terms. The rest of the National-Liberals will look to us for preferential voting support.

We can make a difference, at whatever level of activity we are able to manage. The great thing about a dead political structure is that it only requires a few living activists to make a difference. Lenin and Trotsky, who were very wrong in principle but who knew a thing or two about political activism, believed that in a crisis, a dozen or so activists were enough to bring over a regiment of thirty thousand men. They were looking at a bankrupt, discredited political structure, which no one but fools and opportunists believed in. Does that sound familiar?

Judicial Reform.

2011-04-19T18:34:00.000+10:00

Just about every one of us can immediately think of a court case where we think it got “out of control”. Recently in Central Queensland there were 2 cases which highlight the need for massive judicial reform. One was a case of assault, a “glassing”. The second around the same time was a case where a pensioner was convicted for not voting in the last State election.

In the glassing case of 6 May 2010, (and in the interests of detail the offender was an aboriginal male and the victim a white man), the offender got off with a non-custodial sentence.

The media coverage showed horrendous lacerations to the face of the victim and he also suffered significant emotional and mental harm adding to the seriousness of the crime (the victim was walking his dog by himself past a suburban hotel in Rockhampton when the offender who had been drinking in company attacked him seemingly without warning with a beer glass ). The security video shown in the media is quite clear.

Presiding magistrate Cameron Press, (who incidentally on his appointment to the bench threatened to deal very severely with offenders in violent street crime), sentenced the offender in September 2010 to 10 months imprisonment with immediate parole. This caused public outcry and in October 2010 police prosecutors lodged an appeal against the “manifestly inadequate sentence”.

In March 2011 His Honour Judge Brian Devereaux of the District Court re-sentenced the offender on appeal to the stiffer penalty of 18 months imprisonment with immediate parole. Obviously a worthwhile exercise all round.

Now compare this with the case of a pensioner before the same judge in the same month. His “crime” - failing to vote. The Electoral Commission prosecuted the pensioner in 2010 (a white man) for ”Failing to Vote without a Valid and Sufficient Excuse” and he was fined $921, which included court costs. The pensioner appealed this conviction and in an appeal in March 2011 Judge Devereaux (the same judge as in the glassing case appeal) did not overturn the original conviction. He did however excuse the pensioner of further costs of court, which saved him from further expenses of $1800.

So there you have it. Attack an innocent passer-by with a beer glass, miss his jugular vein by millimetres, hospitalise him and put tremendous emotional and mental strain on him and walk without imprisonment or even a fine. Fail to vote and feel the heat.

Local Rockhampton Labor state member Robert Schwarten who retires next election and is therefore yesterday’s man, is on public record as refusing even debate the need for judicial reform as he sees this as the “slippery slope to fascism and communism”. According to him the judiciary must remain independent even with the above outcomes. Not withstanding that his government has trade ties to communist China and Vietnam we have to ask: what slippery slope are we already on?

Could it be that the penalties associated with not voting are tied to the fact that the major parties get a monetary kick back from the public purse for every vote they attract. Surely not?

You can probably guess why the glassing offender walked free.

‘Anti-Islamism’ A Dangerous Line. Is US Intelligence Providing Nuclear Information To Al-Qaeda??

2011-02-23T15:45:00.000+10:00

The Liberal Party game that allows patriotic people to blow off some steam in criticizing Moslems in Australia and internationally – is a dangerous line.

Not that Moslems should be allowed to migrate to Australia. They shouldn’t. Not that any Islamic radical is any friend of Australia. He isn’t. Moslem culture is incompatible with Australia’s European culture and identity and Islamic radicalism can threaten Australians in various ways.

However, we now see dangerous and incredible reports coming out of Pakistan that the CIA is providing information on nuclear and biological weapons to Al-Qaeda. Aren’t they the folks who are supposed to have demolished the Twin Towers in New York in 2001? Aren’t they the ones in Afghanistan who, along with the Taliban fanatics, are being fought by our soldiers?

Australian nationalists have long said that anti-Islamism is a game designed to rope patriotic Aussies into support for establishment politics. If the CIA is doing what Pakistan intelligence says they are – then anti-Islamism is a lethal game set up with a dark agenda.

What will the Liberal Party say about this?

Read this report from Newstrack India: http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/206839

London, Feb 20(ANI): Double murder-accused US official Raymond Davis has been found in possession of top-secret CIA documents, which point to him or the feared American Task Force 373 (TF373) operating in the region, providing Al-Qaeda terrorists with "nuclear fissile material" and "biological agents," according to a report.

Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) is warning that the situation on the sub-continent has turned "grave" as it appears that open warfare is about to break out between Pakistan and the United States, The European Union Times reports.
The SVR warned in its report that the apprehension of 36-year-old Davis, who shot dead two Pakistani men in Lahore last month, had fuelled this crisis.

According to the report, the combat skills exhibited by Davis, along with documentation taken from him after his arrest, prove that he is a member of US' TF373 black operations unit currently operating in the Afghan War Theatre and Pakistan's tribal areas, the paper said.
While the US insists that Davis is one of their diplomats, and the two men he killed were robbers, Pakistan says that the duo were ISI agents sent to follow him after it was discovered that he had been making contact with al Qaeda, after his cell phone was tracked to the Waziristan tribal area bordering Afghanistan, the paper said.

The most ominous point in this SVR report is "Pakistan's ISI stating that top-secret CIA documents found in Davis's possession point to his, and/or TF373, providing to al Qaeda terrorists "nuclear fissile material" and "biological agents", which they claim are to be used against the United States itself in order to ignite an all-out war in order to re-establish the West's hegemony over a Global economy that is warned is just months away from collapse," the paper added. (ANI)

The Voice - The Australian Greens (Part Five of Seven)

2011-02-22T21:31:00.000+10:00

In part five we take a look at more of the Greens' treasonous policies regarding human rights and democracy, constitutional reform, the creation of an Australian republic which will no doubt take the nation a step closer to becoming the People's Republic of Austrasia, a formal recognition of so-called diversity that the Australian people have never had a say on, and a bill of rights which will take away all of your rights.

They also want by-elections abolished by having retiring members of parliament replaced by a member of his or her party, those with dual citizenship will be allowed to run for Federal Parliament which will leave the nation open to corruption, public funding of all elections, and global governance which will take away Australia's sovereignty forever.

The Greens also want the creation of an international environmental court and the reform of migration regulations which will effectively open our borders to all and sundry. They want a closer involvement with Asia, increased promotion of multiculturalism which is already being shoved down our throats, and the creation of a new class of so-called refugees called environment refugees who will be allowed instant access to our labour market. They also want racial profiling banned and further gun controls.

Do you now think that they are harmless greenies or evil communists? There are even more shocking policies to follow in part six.

Peter Schuback On The Flood Crisis

2011-01-12T21:31:00.000+10:00

Australia First’s lead Senate candidate in the 2010 election released this statement today:

In 1974, flood levels were noted and yet councils allowed people to build in the areas that were flooded in 1974 . Natural water courses have now been built on, or blocked - and in most other cases the councils and State governments have failed to clean and maintain them.

If you build on a water course you are going to get flooded sooner or later! I believe that is one of the reasons that the current predicted flood levels will be much higher than the 1974 flood levels. Councils and State governments have to stop all forms of development in these areas and they have to reclaim any land that has been a water course in the past .

This sort of flooding is going to happen again and again and people have to be protected from the devastating effects of these types of events. There is also another major worry that the Councils and the State government in the south east of the State do not want to address and that is the effect of what will happen if the Wivenhoe or Somerset dams fail and send the water down the river system to Ipswich and Brisbane .

The question has to be asked , JUST HOW SAFE IS THE WIVENHOE DAM and how much water can it hold back before the walls collapse and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the south east of Queensland .

Given that it is State government policy to keep building south-east Queensland for the benefit of new migrant arrivals, we can expect further disasters!

Press Release: Australia First On The Queensland Floods:

2011-01-11T20:33:00.000+10:00

Queensland Drowns But The Foreign Aid Budget Runs Rampant

The devastation caused to Queensland by recent (and continuing) flooding, raises serious political
questions.

It is expected that damage caused by the floods will exceed $5 billion. Lost production may run to at least another $1 billion. Thousands of Queenslanders may become unemployed for a considerable period and be forced to seek government payments.

There is a growing anger amongst Queenslanders that the foreign aid budget - one half per cent of Gross Domestic Product or some $5 billion - is still in operation and is expected to expand. It is a matter of fact that other Australian 'international commitments' also add to this vast sum. Right now, our military serves in a futile war in Afghanistan, instead of being able to fully serve Australians with its unique skills at times of natural disaster; its service in that war runs to hundreds of millions of dollars annually and for now real return. Queenslanders are rightly asking whether Australians ever come first in their own land!?

As a result of the loss of hundreds of dwellings, many Queenslanders are being accommodated in community halls and so on. Afterwards, other temporary housing will be found. Whilst this will be their lot for an extended period, so-called 'refugees' (buzz term: asylum seekers) will be housed in military centres, motels and public housing.

Australia First Party demands an end to false altruism! It is time to put Australia and Australians first.

For further commentary: Perry Jewell 0415 201 867.

Minister knee deep in his own crud goes into damage control

2010-11-25T11:17:00.000+10:00

Locals get a taste of the Gillard/Refugee rent a crowd. AF South Australia HERE

Minister slams detention centre 'racial' campaign

Source

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has taken a swipe at the Australia First Party for distributing provocative leaflets about asylum seekers to Adelaide Hills residents.

Mr Bowen was at Lobethal in the Hills on Wednesday evening to meet residents about the detention centre to be set up at Inverbrackie, in former defence housing.

He said leaflets claiming Australia was being invaded by illegal immigrants were a pointless distraction.

"I think they're disgusting leaflets. I think they're leaflets which add nothing to the public debate," he said.

"They are driven by a political agenda and that political agenda is clearly driven on racial motives.

"I do not think it represents in any way, shape or form anything like a majority or even a significant minority view in this community or in any other community."

The Federal Government is expected to oppose a parliamentary motion seeking to let Adelaide Hills residents vote on whether they want the detention centre in their area.

Mr Bowen told the Lobethal meeting Labor would oppose the private member's motion.

The federal Liberal member for the Adelaide Hills seat of Mayo, Jamie Briggs, said his constituents deserved to be heard in Canberra.

"Our view is give people that opportunity to have their voice to the Federal Parliament, have some of these questions answered and considered by the Federal Parliament before this is rushed ahead with," he said.

Opponents of the detention centre were again out in force, but Mr Bowen said he heard other voices at the meeting.

"If anything I think there were strong views in favour of the facility which perhaps weren't heard at previous meetings," he said.

"Initially there's a lot of concern and a lot of questions. As those questions get answered and the people see the potential benefits for the community then the position changes."

"people see the potential benefits for the community then the position changes". Maybe someone should tell Europe that. Once again nothing but lies and smear from the people who claim to be the representatives of our communities.

Sir Alex Fraser Tyler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and professor at the University of Edinburgh

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.

In short: democracies are eminently corruptible, they are unendingly corrupted by humans who are easily made corrupt by the privileges of elected office.

The Compulsory Vote, "Clayton's democracy". Perry Jewell interview.

2010-11-23T15:35:00.000+10:00

Perry Jewell interview on A.D.D.I.C.T with Jim Saleam.

2010-11-23T14:46:00.000+10:00

Australia First Supports Inverbrackie People’s Struggle Against Refugee Invasion:

2010-10-26T11:34:00.000+10:00

Time For A Community Strike!

Some 400 refugees will be dropped into the Adelaide Hills town of Inverbrackie. So much for the Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott election-period spin on deterring 'asylum seekers'.

Stop the boats? No: fly them in! Disused army facilities will be turned over to the parasites. A large protest meeting at the Woodside Town Hall on October 21 drew some 400 people.

The Australia First Party supports the people of the Adelaide Hills in their concerns and in their protests. The party will commence activities there very soon.

It is a people's struggle that is the decisive thing and it is difficult for direction to be found amidst the chaos of recolonization.

The dark terror that will be waged by Moslem extremists, Tamil Tiger guerrillas, Afghan drug criminals, African animists and so on is but a matter of time. It sums to culture busting (the process by which Australian community feeling and identity is broken down) and is also a type of state-terrorism against the Australian population - ethnic cleansing!

Resistance must become permanent, regardless of what the government does.

Australia First Party proposes the model of a Community Strike:

No Australian should collaborate in any way with any government agency which operates the project.

No Australian should communicate with any so-called refugee.

No Australian should accept any employment arising from the intrusion.

No Australian should attend any church or community group that supports the refugee invasion.

All should shun and avoid any person who violates these rules.

The people of the area should ensure the election of fighting councillors to defend their interests at local level.

Australians should affiliate to and support their Australian heritage or community organization of choice.

The people of Inverbrackie and the Hills area generally will be vilified by the national media and other psychological terrorists for any patriotic stand they take. To end the refugee invasion, to repudiate the United Nations treaties, to punish those in political office who have allowed this, are enormous questions. The people of Inverbrackie have been put in the front line of a battle for the future of Australia.

If you don't fight - you lose!

PRESS RELEASE:
AUSTRALIA FIRST TO CAMPAIGN ON REFUGEE QUESTION
October 25 2010

The Australia First Party will campaign in the Adelaide Hills area on the matter of 'refugee' settlement.

The party has issued a general statement on some of its websites (as on this Blog).

It is argued by Australia First Party that the current Inverbrackie intrusion was planned long before the election period and that the current government was always well aware that numbers of supposed refugees (or in newspeak - 'asylum seekers') would explode. It is further argued that the Liberal Opposition has no policy other than to allow the influx.

Dr. Jim Saleam, speaking on behalf of the national management committee of the party said today:

"Unlike any other party in Australia we are pledged to repudiate all treaties on refugees. We are committed to their return to their countries of origin or to some other place. We are aware that the refugee numbers are limitless and their numbers can only increase with the failed wars of the New World Order system to which Australian politicians are loyal."

The Australia First Party does not interfere in the local efforts of Adelaide Hills people to resist the takeover of their communities by aliens, nor does it dictate any line to anyone. It works independently. The party will state its views without compromise.

Dr. Saleam continued:

"The refugee groups may or may not be genuine in any claims they make about their former homelands, although many are economic invaders, criminal elements and connected to extreme political violence. Their tales of woe are not our business, nor should they be used by clergymen or Human Rights agencies with false agendas. The 'refugees' are being used to culture- bust the Australian identity and heritage as the country is opened to massive population increases that will globalise its citizenry as the follow-on from the globalization of its economy and politics. This is recolonization."

Australia First Party will become a registered party in South Australia in due course.

Dr. Saleam concluded:

"Our program of resistance is a peaceful citizen-based protest which cuts ties of all sorts with state authority and its propagandists. Whether people can resist the Human Rights 'anti-racist' thuggery that will invade the Adelaide Hills will be a test of Australian resilience against the literal stealing of our futures with state-sanction. It is unique in human history."

Further enquiries: 0407 732 868

The Voice - Chinese For Dinner (Video)

2010-10-15T10:31:00.000+10:00

In this episode we take a look at the increasing amount of food from China that is appearing on our supermarket shelves. Most of it is coming in via the back door New Zealand where it is repackaged and sent off as being New Zealand produce. The rest is labelled as being made in Australia from local and/or imported ingredients. We are never told where these imported ingredients come from but with an increasing amount of toxic garbage from China being flooded into the country it is safe to say that every meal you eat is Chinese.

The situation is only going to get worse especially when you consider the much spruiked about water allocation cuts for farmers in the nation's food basket that is the Murray-Darling Basin. This is going to force many farmers off the land while increasing food prices even before Comrade Gillard's much hyped carbon tax is introduced and ensuring that even more of our food is Chinese. If the labor/watermelon coalition government was so concerned about the environment they would cut immigration and in fact install measures to reduce Australia's population. The fact is that farmers are being forced to produce more using fewer resources on land that is largely unsuitable for agriculture as most of our prime farming land has become suburbia.

Australia's secondary industry has all but been destroyed by the traitors in parliament adhering to the letter the recommendations of the Lima Declaration and now it appears that it is the turn of our primary producers to feel the pain of the New World Order Government. In the not too distant future when Australia has been stripped of its natural resources we will be left with an empty husk that will be the property of China. The only ones to benefit from this are the supermarket duopoly of Coles and Woolworths, multinationals and of course our masters the Chinese.

Will Australians ever wake up?

100 Invasion craft and counting.

2010-10-06T09:02:00.001+10:00

The Voice - The Invasion : 100 NOT OUT

"On the 4th of October the 100th boat of 2010 filled with so-called asylum seekers reached Australian waters. Despite the government's spin that it is trying to protect Australia's borders the smugglers bringing these bogus asylum seekers (invaders) to Australia know that the government is full of hot air and that the red carpet is well and truly laid out for them courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.

With each boat that illegally enters our waters more invaders are encouraged to make the journey so they can have a free ride for life at our expense, the cost of which is increasing exponentially. It is not just a monetary cost either as many areas across the country especially our cities resemble third world sewers and are full of no go zones. Never in history has a people sat back and watched their country disintegrate before their very eyes like the sheeple of Australia have allowed to happen. It is not going to stop under the current system and when the Greens (watermelons) gain the balance of power in the Senate on the 1st of July 2011 the destruction of the country will be stepped up several notches.

What would the nation's founders think if they could see what this once great country has become where the standard practice is to ignore and belittle unfortunate Australians while foreigners are given a free ride?"

Urgent Message to QLD Gun Owners.

2010-09-08T12:56:00.000+10:00

The Communists are coming.

Owen Guns
24 McMahon Road
Gympie QLD 4570

PO Box 872
Gympie QLd 4570

Ph: (07) 5482 4099
Fax: (07) 5482 4718

Enquiries

owenguns@spiderweb.com.au

If you know any Gun Owners in Queensland that do not want any more restrictions placed on them ask them to put in a submission, if they cannot do it, do one for them.

There are 200,000 shooters in the state of Queensland, many hundreds of clubs, many hundreds of Firearm Dealers, there are over 3600 email address that receive the Owen Guns Bulletin, most are located in Queensland, yet to date Police sources report that only 200 submissions have been received by the Ministers office in opposition to the new Weapons Draft legislation.

The submissions can be sent electronically by email before the 14th of September 2010. These impending laws will be another huge burden on every firearm owner in this state. More guns will have to be handed in, Licences will be much harder to get, PTAs (permit to acquire) will be harder to get, fee increases of 126%, your safe has to be in a locked room, your guns have to have trigger locks, even Daisy air guns. you will be the hunted.

If more shooters do not put in a submission they will deduce that the balance of the shooting population are in favour of the impending legislation.

A submission needs only be a few lines from a Queensland voters stating.

That the new draft Weapons legislation imposes more obstructive burdens on law abiding shooters, with less protection for the general community from criminal use.

Or select any of the excerpts, sections from the draft Weapons Act & Regulations, at the bottom of this page and cut and past into and email say you don’t agree with it and send it as a submission.

Use any of the material on these pages. Such as this further Submission

Public submissions close September 14. 2010. So do it now.
Please write and email, use the power of the computer to send your personal letter to the politicians, use the links below to send to as many Queensland politicians as possible.

Weapons Act Review Secretariat: Click here to e-mail the Weapons Act Review Secretariat

Weapons Secretariat Postal Address
The Secretariat
Weapons Act Review
Level 2, Tourism House
30 Makerston Street
GPO Box 1440
BRISBANE QLD 4001

Make sure you always include your name and address. That way you will be taken seriously.

QLD Gov Ministers: Click here to e-mail all Gov Ministers

QLD Shadow Gov Ministers: Click here to e-mail all Shadow Gov Ministers

Draft of the Weapons Bill 2010 ( 879 KB) and the Draft Weapons Regulation 2010 ( 891 KB

To

David Smith

Chief of Staff

Office of the Minister for Police, Corrective Services

and Emergency Services

23 August 2010

From

Ron Owen

24 Mc Mahon Rd

Gympie, 4570

0754825070

Re- Second Submission to Weapons Bill 2010 and draft Weapons Regulation 2010.

Re – Response To Police Minister Robertson Concerning First Submission to Weapons Bill 2010 and draft Weapons Regulation 2010.

Dear Sir.

You state, that “Community safety is a priority of the Bligh Government.” Yet disarm and leave defenceless the law abiding members of our community and encourage the lawless by leaving those good people defenceless.

You state, that “The Government considers weapons control and the associated licensing and registration systems are fundamentally important components to making our communities as safe and secure as possible.” Yet have not supplied any evidence, or any argument to prove that licensing and Registration of firearms makes our communities any more secure or safe. Please respond to my first submission requesting this information. How many Home invasions would have been prevented if the Criminals knew that there intended victims were armed? Would they have proceeded with the home Invasion?

You State, “This Government is committed to ensuring the weapons laws work for all Queenslanders.” Yet the imposition of these laws only ensured that good Queenslanders pay millions of dollars per years, work through countless meaningless forms to keep hundreds of Police and staff busy wasting everyones time and money. For no reason at all except creating more crime figures which creates more police. Its called Parkinsons Law.

You State , “the Weapons Act Review Committee (the Committee), represented by weapons industry stakeholders, was established. The Committee considered an extensive list of proposed amendments for inclusion in the draft Weapons Bill 2010.” There story is that they did not accept any of it and there recommendations were not used. That this is Police written legislation to further their cause for more jobs for the boys.

You State, “The material you submitted has been forwarded to the Weapons Act Review Secretariat for consideration as part of the review.” Why did you not respond to any of the points in my submission, except the Cost Increases?

You State, “Cost increases, weapons licensing fees in Queensland have historically been held at artificially low levels. All costs associated with the implementation of national uniform firearms controls have been absorbed over time.” You were given Millions from the Medicare levy from the Federal government to impose that set of restrictions on the good citizens of Queensland, Hundred maybe thousands have died waiting for a hospital bed, due to the waste of the first 500 million. If you want some more money ask your ex Director of Administration Mr Robert Carson to show you how they paid money to XXXX and Superman, Batman, Mickey Mouse and each other, during the buy back process. If you cannot find a copy please ask and I will show you how they paid $2 million just for cardboard boxes. The law abiding firearm owners of Queensland should not be asked to pay for Police corruption.

You say, “The costs associated with the management, licensing and registration of weapons in Queensland have increased substantially”. The law abiding firearm owners of Queensland should not be asked to pay for Police inefficiencies. As it is we have to do all the work for them.

You say, “As a result, the general public has been required to subsidise those costs.” Why not have a referendum and ask the ones that want to have a licence and registration system to pay for it, bill the ones that vote for it, not the ones that have to suffer under it. If you want any bets on you winning a referenda on that basis I will take any bets. If you want to impose it you should pay for it. The law abiding shooter of this state are not Criminals they should not be penalised and fined for making this State a safer place.

You say, “This Government considers these costs should be attributed more closely to the users who benefit from the administrative process,” Could you please name one benefit that having a licence imposed on the free ownership of property or the registration of that property does for the licensed firearms owners. As it does not make them easier to get, easier to use, in reality it only makes them harder to sell. The technology of making firearms has been around for many hundreds of years and your even licensing crossbows which is 4000 year old technology. There is no benefit for firearm owners or anyone else for that matter except for maybe Criminals as they can get a full list of where the firearms are stored from any crooked policeman.

You say, “It is also the Government’s view that the weapons licensing fees in Queensland are reasonable and not excessive when compared to those of other jurisdictions.” Check for yourself I know that other states Dealers Licences and PTA application are a lot cheaper. Are you just listening to the Queensland Police again.

You say, “the Government and the Police Service are currently investing in the development and introduction of a contemporary weapons licensing management system. The increased costs associated with some weapons licensing fees will ensure the introduction of an on-line weapons licensing system. This new system will streamline processes and provide efficiency of service to licence holders, firearm dealers and shooting clubs. The on-line services will significantly reduce the need for more than 100 000 police station attendances each year by members of the public to undertake weapons licensing transactions. Developing new online capabilities will allow members of the public to submit their details on the internet, without the need to attend a police establishment.” You would think that the Queensland Police would have a copy of the Microsoft Excell by now and not have to charge us for another one. You can remove the need for 100,000 attendances and the need for the Police to come and check the safes and security all in one hit just follow New Zealand and Canada and remove the requirement for the registration and licencing of Long Arms. In one swoop, you would have 200,000 extra votes for your party and their families votes, you could also put more police on the street fighting crime and earning income writing speeding tickets. It would save us all a lot of work and money. What’s more it would keep the opposition out of power for years and they deserve it, as they, with your parties assistance created this monster in the first place..

I trust this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Ron Owen JP (Qual)

These below are just some of the new provisions that I find objectionable have a look for your self.

The Daft Act 2010

ammunition see the Explosives Act 1999 , schedule 2.

The Objects to Limit Law Abiding Shooters.

2 Categorising weapons

Prescribing categories of weapons, and things to be within a

particular category of weapon.

3 Limiting or prohibiting licensing of particular weapons

Limiting or prohibiting licensing of particular weapons or

particular types or categories of weapons.

4 Limiting or prohibiting acquisition, possession or use of

weapons and regulated items

Limiting or prohibiting the acquisition, possession or use of

particular weapons or regulated items or particular types or

categories of weapons or regulated items.

5 Limiting or prohibiting activities involving weapons

Limiting or prohibiting particular activities involving

weapons or particular types or categories of weapons.

7 Category D weapons

(1) Each of the following is a category D weapon—

(a) a self-loading centre-fire rifle;

(b) a firearm that substantially duplicates a self-loading

centre-fire rifle in appearance, design or function;

(c) a self-loading shotgun with a magazine capacity of more

than 5 rounds;

(d) a pump action shotgun with a magazine capacity of

more than 5 rounds;

(e) a self-loading rim-fire rifle with a magazine capacity of

more than 10 rounds.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to a weapon mentioned in the

subsection even if the weapon is permanently deactivated.

(3) A major component part of a weapon mentioned in subsection

(1) is a category D weapon.

(4) An imitation of a weapon mentioned in subsection (1) is a

category D weapon.

284 Declaration of weapons category by commissioner

(1) The commissioner may, by gazette notice, declare a

dangerous thing that is not categorised in the Weapons

Categories Regulation 2010 to be within a particular category

of weapon.

(2) In deciding whether to make a declaration under subsection

(1), the commissioner must have regard to—

(a) whether the thing has been designed for military

purposes; and

(b) the category of weapon the thing most closely

resembles; and

(c) the need to ensure public and individual safety.

(3) A declaration under subsection (1)—

(a) takes effect on the day (the day of effect) that is 3 days

after the day it is published in the gazette or on the later

day stated in the declaration; and

(b) ends on the day that is 6 months after the day of effect;

and

(c) may not be made in relation to a thing that has been the

subject of a previous declaration under this section.

(4) The commissioner must notify each person, whom the

commissioner is aware is in possession of a thing to which a

declaration under subsection (1) applies, of the declaration.

(5) If the commissioner declares a thing to be within a particular

category of weapon under subsection (1), the thing is, for the

purposes of this Act, taken to be within that category only.

(6) In any proceeding for an offence under this Act in relation to a

thing that is declared under subsection (1) to be within a

particular category, it is a defence to a charge in relation to

possession of a thing as being of a particular category that the

person has not been notified by the commissioner under

subsection (4) of the declaration.

Chapter 9 Miscellaneous

Part 2 Declarations, statements and exclusion notices

Page 221

(7) No compensation is payable by the State because of a

declaration under this section.

(8) In this section—

dangerous thing means—

(a) a firearm; or

(b) a thing ordinarily described as a weapon that is capable

of causing death or injury.

POWER OF Search

The Daft Bill

Page 296

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000

1 Sections 25(1), 714(1)(a) and 715(a), ‘Weapons Act

1990’—

omit, insert—

‘Weapons Act 2010’.

2 Section 159(c), 4th dot point, after ‘1990’—

insert—

‘or Weapons Act 2010’.

To page 302.

“Which then gives the power.”

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000

Chapter 2 General enforcement powers

Part 1 Entry, inquiries and inspection

22 Power to enter etc. for relevant laws

(1) For ensuring compliance with a relevant law, a police officer

may do any of the following—

(a) at any reasonable time, enter and stay on a place used

for a purpose under a licence under the relevant law;

(b) inspect, photograph or copy a prescribed item there or at

a place with appropriate facilities for photographing or

copying the item;

(c) seize a thing to which the relevant law applies, if the

thing is evidence of the commission of an offence

against the relevant law or another Act;

(d) require a licence holder or someone else apparently in

possession of prescribed items to produce stated

prescribed items for inspection;

(e) inspect security measures a person must maintain under

the relevant law;

(f) require a licence holder or person apparently in

possession or in charge of the place to give to the police

officer reasonable help to do something mentioned in

paragraph (b) or (e).

(2) A police officer may enter a part of a place not used for the

purpose for which entry is made, but only to get to the place

used for the purpose.

relevant law, means an Act under which a person or place

must be licensed, and prescribed under a regulation for

chapter 2, part 1.

159 Application of pt 2

This part applies only in relation to the following offences (a

part 2 offence)—

(a) an indictable offence;

(b) an offence involving gaming or betting;

(c) an offence against any of the following Acts—

• Confiscation Act

• Explosives Act 1999

• Nature Conservation Act 1992

• Weapons Act 1990;

(d) an offence against the Liquor Act 1992, section 168B or

168C.

25 Power to demand production of licence etc. for weapons

(1) This section applies if a person is required under the Weapons

Act 1990—

(a) to be the holder of a licence or permit to acquire under

that Act; or

(b) to have the approval of any person; or

30 Prescribed circumstances for searching persons without

warrant

The prescribed circumstances for searching a person without a

warrant are as follows—

(a) the person has something that may be—

(i) a weapon, knife or explosive the person may not

lawfully possess,

32 Prescribed circumstances for searching vehicle without

warrant

The prescribed circumstances for searching a vehicle without

a warrant are that there is something in the vehicle that—

may be a weapon or explosive a person may not lawfully

possess,

Security Over Kill

165 Secure storage facilities at safe storage address

(1) The entity must—

(a) store the weapon unloaded in secure storage facilities

for the weapon at the safe storage address for the

weapon; and

(b) if the weapon is stored in secure storage facilities

mentioned in section 162, paragraph (b) or

(c)(i)—ensure the weapon is temporarily deactivated;

166 Container in locked room

(1) If the entity is unable to comply with section 165, the entity

must—

(a) store the weapon unloaded and temporarily deactivated

in a securely closed container; and

(b) take reasonable precautions to ensure the weapon is not

accessible to persons who are not lawfully authorised to

possess the weapon.

Maximum penalty—100 penalty units or 2 years

imprisonment.

13 When a firearm is temporarily deactivated

(1) A firearm is temporarily deactivated if it is modified in the

way prescribed under a regulation to make it temporarily

incapable of being discharged.

(2) A regulation made under subsection (1) may prescribe a way

approved by an authorised officer.

167 Vehicle

(1) If the entity is unable to comply with section 165 and section

166, the entity must store the weapon unloaded and

temporarily deactivated—

(a) in the locked boot of a vehicle; or

(b) in a locked metal container fixed to a vehicle; or

(c) in a securely closed container that is out of sight in a

vehicle.

Maximum penalty—100 penalty units or 2 years

imprisonment.

(2) The metal container mentioned in subsection (1)(b), and

anything on or attached to it, must not suggest a weapon is

inside.

171 Particular parts of firearms

(1) This part applies to an entity that possesses a prescribed part

of a firearm if—

(a) for an entity that is an individual—the prescribed part of

the firearm is not in the physical possession of the

individual; or

(b) for an entity that is a body—the prescribed part of the

firearm is not in the physical possession of the body’s

representative.

(2) The entity must take reasonable precautions to ensure the

prescribed part is not accessible to persons who are not

lawfully authorised to possess the prescribed part.

Examples of taking reasonable precautions——

• placing the prescribed part in a locked container

• placing the prescribed part in a locked room

Maximum penalty—10 penalty units

(3) In this section—

prescribed part, of a firearm, means the barrel, or breech

block or bolt, of the firearm that is not part of a complete

firearm.

7 Meaning of category of weapon

(1) A category of weapon is a category of weapon prescribed

under a regulation.

Note—

See the Weapons Categories Regulation 2010.

(2) A regulation may prescribe a particular firearm to be within a

category of weapon.

Note—

The category of weapon within which a particular firearm is prescribed

impacts on, for example, the type of licence that may be held for the

firearm, the storage obligations under chapter 5 for the firearm, and the

penalty under section 178 for unlawful possession of the firearm.

169 Multiple weapons

(1) This section applies to an entity that possesses a weapon at a

place where there are more than 30 weapons, whether or not

the entity possesses each or any of the other weapons, if—

(a) for an entity that is an individual—the weapon is not in

the physical possession of the individual; or

(b) for an entity that is a body—the weapon is not in the

physical possession of the body’s representative.

(2) The entity must—

(a) store the weapon unloaded and temporarily deactivated

in a secure storeroom or a secure vault; and

(b) take reasonable precautions to ensure the weapon is not

accessible to persons who are not lawfully authorised to

possess the weapon.

Maximum penalty—100 penalty units or 2 years

imprisonment.

Part 3 Verification of particulars

157 Production of weapon to establish or verify particulars of

weapon

(1) This section applies to a person in possession of a weapon.

(2) A member of the police service may require the person to

produce the weapon to an authorised officer at a stated time

and place to establish or verify any of the following

particulars of the weapon—

(a) the action, calibre, category, make, model or type of the

weapon;

11 Meaning of imitation

(1) An imitation, of a weapon, is a thing that—

(a) is a reasonable copy of the weapon; and

(b) is not capable of causing death or injury by discharging

a projectile, or a thing mentioned in section 8(1)(b)(ii);

and

(c) could reasonably be taken to be the weapon.

Note—

A regulation made under section 6(1)(b) may prescribe an imitation of a

weapon to be within a category of weapon. An imitation of a category

A, B, C or M weapon is a regulated item—see section 240(c).

(2) An imitation, of a crossbow, longbow or spear gun, is a thing

that—

(a) is a reasonable copy of a crossbow, longbow or spear

gun; and

(b) is not capable of causing death or injury by discharging

a projectile, or a thing mentioned in section 8(1)(b)(ii);

and

(c) could reasonably be taken to be a crossbow, longbow or

379 Registration of antique handguns

(1) This section applies if, at the commencement, a person

possesses an antique handgun.

(2) For the purposes of section 244 of the new Act, the person is

taken to have acquired the antique handgun on the day of the

commencement.

380 Registration of permanently deactivated category A, B or

C weapons

(1) This section applies if, at the commencement, a person

possesses a permanently deactivated category A, B or C

weapon.

(2) For the purposes of section 253 of the new Act, the person is

taken to have acquired the permanently deactivated category

A, B or C weapon on the day of the commencement.

Schedule 2 Subject matter for regulations

section 325

1 Authorising things under licence or permit

Providing for things that the holder of a licence or permit, or

any other person, including, for example, an unlicensed

person, may or may not do under the authority of a licence or

permit.

NO APPEAL To Magistrates Court.

Tribunal has no Rule of evidence, no judge, no discovery , Very little area able to review.

Chapter 8 Reviews

279 Who may apply for review

(1) A person whose interests are affected by a reviewable

decision may apply, as provided under the QCAT Act, to

QCAT for a review of the decision.

(2) For this section, a person who has been given or is entitled to

be given a QCAT information notice about a decision is taken

to be a person whose interests are affected by the decision.

(3) In this section—

reviewable decision means—

(a) a decision mentioned in schedule 1; or

(b) a decision prescribed under a regulation for the purpose

of this paragraph.

280 Stay of operation of decision

(1) An application to QCAT for a review of a decision does not

stay the decision.

(2) However, the applicant may apply, as provided under the

QCAT Act, to QCAT for a stay of the decision if, and only

if—

(a) the applicant is unable to satisfy an occupational

requirement because of the decision; or

(b) the applicant is unable to conduct a business because of

the decision.

(3) QCAT may grant the stay on conditions it considers

appropriate.

(4) An application to QCAT for a review of a decision affects the

decision, or carrying out of a decision, only if the decision is

stayed

Schedule 1 Reviewable decisions

section 279(1)

Section Description of decision

Licences

33 refusal to issue licence

37 refusal to renew licence

55 refusal to approve transfer of weapon to another licence

61 refusal to amend licence

62 decision to amend licence

65 decision to suspend licence

66 decision to cancel licence

85 decision to give notice to dispose

87 refusal to replace licence

Permits

104 refusal to issue permit

107 refusal to renew permit

131 refusal to amend permit

132 decision to amend permit

135 decision to suspend permit

136 decision to cancel permit

144 refusal to replace permit

Disguised Category??????

178 Unlawful possession of weapon prohibited

(1) A person must not unlawfully possess a weapon.

Examples of lawful possession of a weapon—

• possession under a licence

• possession by a person to whom this Act does not apply under

section 15

• possession by a person under an exemption granted under section

19

• possession by an unlicensed person under division 2

Maximum penalty—

(a) for an excluded person—

(i) if the person unlawfully possesses 10 or more

weapons at least 5 of which are category D, E, H or

R weapons—15 years imprisonment; or

(ii) if subparagraph (i) does not apply and the person

unlawfully possesses 10 or more weapons—600

penalty units or 12 years imprisonment; or

(iii) if subparagraphs (i) and (ii) do not apply—

(A) for a category D, H or R weapon—400

penalty units or 9 years imprisonment; or

(B) for a category C or E weapon—300 penalty

units or 6 years imprisonment; or

(C) for a category A, B or M weapon, or an

uncategorised firearm—200 penalty units or

4 years imprisonment; or

(b) otherwise—

(i) if the person unlawfully possesses 10 or more

weapons at least 5 of which are category D, E, H or

R weapons—13 years imprisonment; or

(ii) if subparagraph (i) does not apply and the person

unlawfully possesses 10 or more weapons—500

penalty units or 10 years imprisonment; or

(iii) if subparagraphs (i) and (ii) do not apply—

(A) for a category D, H or R weapon—300

penalty units or 7 years imprisonment; or

(B) for a category C or E weapon—200 penalty

units or 4 years imprisonment; or

(C) for a category A, B or M weapon, or an

uncategorised firearm—100 penalty units or

2 years imprisonment.

(2) For subsection (1), a person who possesses a disguised

category A weapon or a disguised category B weapon is taken

to possess a category H weapon.

(3) If the maximum penalty otherwise applying for an offence

against subsection (1) would be that mentioned in paragraph

(a)(iii) or (b)(iii) of the penalty (the relevant provision), and

the weapon is an imitation of a weapon, a permanently

deactivated firearm or an heirloom weapon, the maximum

penalty for the offence is half of the maximum penalty

mentioned in the relevant provision.

(4) A court, in sentencing a person convicted of an offence

against subsection (1), may take into consideration whether

the person stored the weapon in secure storage facilities for

the weapon.

(5) In this section—

179 Effect of licensee’s failure to enter particulars in register

(1) This section applies to a licensee who is required, under this

Act, to keep a register in relation to weapons.

(2) If the licensee, without reasonable excuse, possesses a

weapon the prescribed particulars of which have not been

entered in the register as required under this Act, the licensee

is taken to unlawfully possess the weapon and may be

prosecuted and punished under section 178 for the possession.

Possession

180 Possession by licensee of unregistered firearm, prescribed part or conversion unit prohibited

(1) A licensee must not possess a firearm unless the firearm is a

registered weapon.

Maximum penalty—120 penalty units.

(2) A licensee must not possess a prescribed part of a firearm

unless the prescribed part is, or is part of, a registered weapon.

Maximum penalty—120 penalty units.

(3) A licensee must not possess a conversion unit unless the

conversion unit is a registered weapon.

Maximum penalty—120 penalty units.

(4) A licensed dealer or licensed armourer does not contravene

subsection (1), (2) or (3) if the firearm, prescribed part or

conversion unit is entered in a register kept by the dealer or

armourer as required under a regulation.

(5) In subsection (1), the reference to firearm does not include a

reference to a major component part of a firearm.

(6) In this section—

(a) means a thing mentioned in the Weapons Categories

Regulation 2010, section 4(4), 5(4) or 9(5); and

(b) includes part of a thing mentioned in paragraph (a).

Part 4 Offences involving the acquisition and disposal of weapons

Division 1 Acquisition and disposal

192 Definition for div 1

In this part—

weapon, if the weapon is a firearm, does not include a major

component part of the firearm, other than the action, body,

frame or receiver of the firearm.

Notes—

1 The barrel, breech block or bolt, or top slide of a firearm is not a

weapon for the purpose of this division.

2 Under section 6(1)(b) and the Weapons Categories Regulation

2010, sections 4(4), 5(4) and 9(5), a conversion unit for a category

A, B or H weapon is also a weapon.

171 Particular parts of firearms

(1) This part applies to an entity that possesses a prescribed part

of a firearm if—

(a) for an entity that is an individual—the prescribed part of

the firearm is not in the physical possession of the

individual; or

(b) for an entity that is a body—the prescribed part of the

firearm is not in the physical possession of the body’s

representative.

(2) The entity must take reasonable precautions to ensure the

prescribed part is not accessible to persons who are not

lawfully authorised to possess the prescribed part.

Examples of taking reasonable precautions——

• placing the prescribed part in a locked container

• placing the prescribed part in a locked room

Maximum penalty—10 penalty units

(3) In this section—

prescribed part, of a firearm, means the barrel, or breech

block or bolt, of the firearm that is not part of a complete

firearm.

207 Licensed armourer must employ qualified weapons

employee

A licensed armourer must not employ a person who, in the

course of the person’s employment, will have access to a

weapon unless the person is a qualified weapons employee.

Maximum penalty—100 penalty units.

Regulated items

Part 1 Preliminary

239 Purpose of ch 7

The purpose of this chapter is to improve public and

individual safety in relation to regulated items by—

(a) requiring the registration of particular regulated items;

and

(b) prohibiting or limiting the acquisition and possession of

regulated items; and

(c) imposing requirements about the safe storage and

handling of regulated items; and

(d) prohibiting the unlawful supply of, or trafficking in,

regulated items.

240 Meaning of regulated item

A regulated item is—

(a) an antique handgun; or

(b) a permanently deactivated category A, B or C weapon;

or

(c) an imitation of a category A, B, C or M weapon; or

(d) an adjustable stock; or

(e) a detachable magazine; or

(f) a laser pointer; or

(g) a restricted article.

6 Shooting associations

295 Notice of expelled members

(1) A shooting association must give an authorised officer a

notice stating—

(a) when a member of the association is expelled from the

association;

(b) the name and licence number, if any, of the member; and

(c) the reason for the expulsion.

Maximum penalty—60 penalty units.

(2) The notice mentioned in subsection (1) must be given to an

authorised officer within 14 days after the day the member is

expelled.

(3) This section applies despite any duty of confidentiality owed

by the shooting association, or a representative of the shooting

association, or a member of the governing body of the

shooting association, to the member.

(4) The giving of information by the shooting association under

this section does not give rise to any criminal or civil action or

remedy against the shooting association, or a representative of

the shooting association, or a member of the governing body

of the shooting association.

296 Request for information about members

(1) An authorised officer may, by notice given to a shooting

association, request the association to give the authorised

officer the following information—

(a) whether a particular person is or was a member of the

association;

(b) the particulars of a person who holds or held a particular

stated position within the association.

Excerpts from The Daft Regulation,

Secure safes

10 Safes

(1) The safe must be in a room of a permanent building.

(2) The room must always be locked (other than the time

necessary to have the room open for a proper purpose).

(3) The safe must be made of steel and—

(a) weigh at least 150kg; or

(b) be fixed to the permanent building by welding or

hardened steel bolts of at least 10mm in diameter

Schedule 6.

handgun shooting competition

handgun shooting competition means a national or

international shooting competition, that includes using a

prescribed category H weapon, at a place where the sport of

target shooting using a category H weapon is lawfully

authorised to take place.

(2) However, if the licensee’s genuine reason for possession of

the weapon is to engage in the sport of target shooting as

mentioned in section 45(1)(c)(iii), and the licence authorises

the licensee to possess and use a high calibre pistol, the

licence only authorises the licensee to possess and use a high

calibre pistol to engage in accredited events.

(c) has engaged in at least 3 handgun shooting

competitions, conducted on different days, during the

period mentioned in paragraph (b).

(2) Also, if the weapon is a high calibre pistol, the authorised

officer may issue the concealable firearms licence only if the

authorised officer is satisfied that the club mentioned in

subsection (1)(a) takes part in, or is affiliated with a body that

takes part in, accredited events.

57 Condition—membership of primary target shooting club

(1) It is a condition of the concealable firearms licence that the

licensee must be a member of the licensee’s primary target

shooting club.

( IS THIS PUT IN BY QAPSA)

58 Condition—membership of shooting association

(1) This section applies if—

(a) the holder of a concealable firearms licence participates

in a handgun shooting competition; and

(b) the participation requirements of the competition

require that a participant in the competition be a

member of a particular shooting association.

(2) It is a condition of the concealable firearms licence that the

licensee must be a member of that shooting association at the

time of participating in the competition.

279 Affiliation with shooting association

It is a condition of a target shooting club permit that the body

that is the holder of the permit must be affiliated with a

shooting association.

44 Things authorised by licence

(1) A concealable firearms licence authorises the licensee—

(a) if the licensee’s genuine reason for possession of the

weapon is a need mentioned in section 45(1)(c)(i) or

(ii)—to possess and use a category H weapon, of a type

or class stated on the licence, in the number stated on the

licence, to satisfy the need for which the licence was

issued; or

(b) if the licensee’s genuine reason for possession of the

weapon is to engage in the sport of target shooting as

mentioned in section 45(1)(c)(iii)—to possess and use

any prescribed category H weapon of a type or class

stated on the licence to engage in the sport of target

shooting at any place where the sport of target shooting

using prescribed category H weapons is lawfully

authorised to take place.

(2) However, if the licensee’s genuine reason for possession of

the weapon is to engage in the sport of target shooting as

mentioned in section 45(1)(c)(iii), and the licence authorises

the licensee to possess and use a high calibre pistol, the

licence only authorises the licensee to possess and use a high

calibre pistol to engage in accredited events.

(3) To remove any doubt, it is declared that a concealable firearms

licence does not authorise the licensee to possess or use a

weapon—

(a) for recreational shooting; or

(b) to engage in military simulation games.

Decide Means ?? Satisfied means??

47 Restrictions on issue

(1) The authorised officer may issue the concealable firearms

licence only if the authorised officer is satisfied that—

(a) the need can not be satisfied in another way; and

(b) the stated rural land is suitable for the use of the weapon

to satisfy the need; and

(c) the stated rural land is in Queensland, unless there are

exceptional circumstances; and

(d) using the weapon on the stated rural land to satisfy the

need will not adversely affect public or individual

safety.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1)(a), in deciding whether or not

the need can be satisfied in another way, the authorised officer

must consider whether the need can be satisfied—

(a) in a way that does not require the applicant to possess a

weapon; or

(b) in a way that requires the applicant to possess a different

type or category of weapon.

54 Restrictions on issue

(1) The authorised officer may issue the concealable firearms

licence only if the authorised officer is satisfied that the

applicant—

(a) is a member of an approved target shooting club that is

authorised to conduct the sport of target shooting using

prescribed category H weapons; and

(b) has been a member of the club for at least 6 months

immediately before making the application; and

(c) has engaged in at least 3 handgun shooting

competitions, conducted on different days, during the

period mentioned in paragraph (b).

(2) Also, if the weapon is a high calibre pistol, the authorised

officer may issue the concealable firearms licence only if the

authorised officer is satisfied that the club mentioned in

subsection (1)(a) takes part in, or is affiliated with a body that

takes part in, accredited events.

(3) This section is in addition to section 45.

60 Condition—prohibition of particular magazines

(1) It is a condition of the concealable firearms licence that the

licensee must not possess a detachable high-capacity

magazine that is able to be used in a category H weapon.

(2) In this section—

detachable high-capacity magazine—

(a) means a detachable magazine with a capacity of more

than 10 rounds; and

(b) includes part of a detachable magazine mentioned in

paragraph (a).

77 Condition—single business

It is a condition of a dealer’s licence that only the licensee

may conduct a business at the licensee’s business premises.

Example—

A licensed dealer may not share the licensee’s business premises with

another dealer.

What happens about holidays or off sick????

78 Condition—active conduct of business

(1) It is a condition of a dealer’s licence that the licensee must

actively conduct the business of dealer.

(2) A licensee is taken to have contravened the condition

mentioned in subsection (1) if the licensee does not, under

section 74, make an entry in the licensee’s transactions

register for a continuous period of 6 months.

(3) An authorised officer may extend the period mentioned in

subsection (2) if—

(a) the licensee applies to the authorised officer for an

extension before the end of the period mentioned in

subsection (2); and

(b) the authorised officer is satisfied there are exceptional

circumstances.

80 Condition—weapons must be labelled

(1) It is a condition of a dealer’s licence that the licensee must fix

a label, as provided under this section, to each weapon

possessed under the licence at the licensee’s business

premises.

(2) The label must—

(a) show a number that is capable of being used to identify

the record of any transaction involving the weapon that

is recorded in the licensee’s transactions register; and

(b) be fixed to the weapon or within 1 day after the weapon

is first possessed at the licensee’s business premises.

(3) If the weapon is in a box or other packaging, the label may be

fixed to the box or packaging.

(4) In this section—

weapon includes—

(a) an antique handgun; and

(b) a permanently deactivated category A, B or C weapon.

81 Condition—weapons must be able to be immediately

located

(1) It is a condition of a dealer’s licence that the licensee must

have a method for immediately locating—

(a) each weapon that is possessed under the licence at the

licensee’s business premises; and

(b) each entry made in the dealer’s transactions register

about a particular weapon.

(2) The method may include, for example, electronic records and

the labels mentioned in section 80.

(3) The method must be sufficient to enable the licensee, upon the

request of an authorised officer—

(a) to immediately produce to the officer a particular

weapon possessed under the licence at the licensee’s

business premises; and

(b) to immediately show the officer each entry made in the

dealer’s transactions register about a particular weapon.

(4) In this section—

weapon includes—

(a) an antique handgun; and

(b) a permanently deactivated category A, B or C weapon.

28 Condition—weapons must be able to be immediately

located

(1) It is a condition of an armourer’s licence that the licensee must

have a method for immediately locating—

(a) each weapon that is possessed under the licence at the

licensee’s business premises; and

(b) each entry made in the armourer’s transactions register

about a particular weapon.

(2) The method may include, for example, electronic records and

the labels mentioned in section 27.

(3) The method must be sufficient to enable the licensee, upon the

request of an authorised officer—

(a) to immediately produce to the officer a particular

weapon possessed under the licence at the licensee’s

business premises; and

(b) to immediately show the officer each entry made in the

armourer’s transactions register about a particular

weapon.

(4) In this section—

weapon includes—

(a) an antique handgun; and

(b) a permanently deactivated category A, B or C weapon.

(All Major Component Parts are defined as firearms so we must immediately produce a missing bolt or a missing magazine, or lose our licence.)

85 Restrictions on issue—generally

An authorised officer may issue a firearms licence only—

(a) for a category A, B, C or D weapon (the weapon); and

(b) to an adult (the applicant); and

(c) if the authorised officer is satisfied that the applicant’s

genuine reason for possession of the weapon is—

(i) a need to possess or use a category A or B weapon,

for an occupational rural purpose, in the conduct of

the applicant’s business or employment on stated

rural land; or

(ii) a need to possess or use a category C weapon, for

an occupational rural purpose, in the conduct of the

applicant’s business or employment on stated rural

land; or

(iii) a need to possess or use a category D weapon

87 Restrictions on issue

(1) The authorised officer may issue the firearms licence only if

the authorised officer is satisfied that—

(a) the need can not be satisfied in another way; and

(b) the stated rural land is suitable for the use of the weapon

to satisfy the need; and

(c) the stated rural land is in Queensland, unless there are

exceptional circumstances; and

(d) using the weapon on the stated rural land to satisfy the

need will not adversely affect public or individual

safety.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1)(a), in deciding whether or not

the need can be satisfied in another way, the authorised officer

must consider whether the need can be satisfied—

(a) in a way that does not require the applicant to possess a

weapon; or

(b) in a way that requires the applicant to possess a different

type or category of weapon.

(3) This section is in addition to section 85.

88 Additional information to accompany application

The application for the issue, or renewal, of the firearms

licence must be accompanied by—

(a) enough information about the need to possess the

weapon for the occupational rural purpose mentioned in

section 85(c)(i) to enable an authorised officer to decide

whether the need can be satisfied in another way; and

(b) enough information about the stated rural land to enable

an authorised officer to decide—

(i) whether the land is suitable for the use of the

weapon to satisfy the need mentioned in section

85(c)(i); and

(ii) whether using the weapon on the land to satisfy the

need will adversely affect public or individual

safety.

90 Restrictions on issue

(1) The authorised officer may issue the firearms licence only if

the authorised officer is satisfied that—

(a) the need can not be satisfied in another way; and

(3) Also, the authorised officer may issue the firearms licence for

more than 1 category C weapon only if the authorised officer

is satisfied that—

(a) the applicant has a need for more than 1 category C

weapon; and

(b) the need can not be satisfied in another way; and

(c) the stated rural land is suitable for the use of more than 1

category C weapon to satisfy the need; and

(d) using more than 1 category C weapon on the stated rural

land to satisfy the need will not adversely affect public

or individual safety.

106 Additional information to accompany application

The application for the issue, or renewal, of the firearms

licence must be accompanied by—

(a) 1 of the following—

(i) evidence of the applicant’s ownership of the stated

rural land;

(ii) written permission from the owner of the stated

rural land authorising the applicant to engage in

recreational shooting using category A or B

weapons on the land;

(iii) evidence of the applicant’s current membership of

a club mentioned in section 105(1)(a)(iii); and

(b) enough information about the location, area and

surrounding features of the stated rural land to enable an

authorised officer to decide—

(i) whether the land is suitable for the use of the

weapon to engage in recreational shooting; and

(ii) whether using the weapon on the land to engage in

recreational shooting will adversely affect public

or individual safety.

108 Restrictions on issue

(1) The authorised officer may issue the firearms licence only if

the authorised officer is satisfied that the applicant is a

member of—

(a) an approved target shooting club that is authorised to

conduct the sport of target shooting using category A or

B weapons; or

(b) a shooting association.

(2) This section is in addition to section 85.

110 Condition—membership of primary target shooting club

(1) It is a condition of the firearms licence that the licensee must

be a member of the licensee’s primary target shooting club.

(2) The licensee may change the licensee’s primary target

shooting club at any time by becoming a member of another

approved target shooting club that is authorised to conduct the

sport of target shooting using category A or B weapons, or

another shooting association (the new primary target

shooting club).

(3) However, the change does not take effect until the licensee

gives to each of the following a notice in the approved form of

the change—

(a) the new primary target shooting club;

(b) the previous primary target shooting club;

(c) an authorised officer.

113 Restrictions on issue

(1) The authorised officer may issue the firearms licence only if

the authorised officer is satisfied that—

(a) the applicant is a member of an approved target shooting

club that takes part in, or is affiliated with a body that

takes part in, clay target shooting competitions; and

(b) the applicant, because of a lack of strength or dexterity,

has a physical need for a category C shotgun to enable

the applicant to take part in the sport of target shooting.

(2) This section is in addition to section 85.

116 Condition—participation requirement

(1) This section applies if the licensee is the registered possessor

of a category C shotgun.

(2) It is a condition (participation condition) of the firearms

licence that the licensee must use a category C shotgun to

participate in at least 4 shoots in each financial year.

(3) For subsection (2)—

(a) at least 2 of the shoots must be clay target shooting

competitions; and

(b) each of the shoots must be conducted on a different day.

(4) This section is subject to sections 117, 118 and 119.

117 Condition—participation requirement if licensee has

owned weapon for less than 12 months but not less than

3 months in a financial year

(1) This section applies if the licensee is the registered possessor

of a category C shotgun for less than 12 months but not less

than 3 months in a particular financial year.

(2) The participation condition applies proportionately, based on

whole calendar months, for that financial year, after rounding

down to the nearest whole number of shoots.

118 Condition—participation requirement if licensee has

owned weapon for less than 3 months in a financial year

(1) This section applies if the licensee is the registered possessor

of a category C shotgun for less than 3 months in a particular

financial year.

(2) The participation condition does not apply for that financial

year.

119 Condition—participation requirement if licensee is

unable to satisfy condition

(1) This section applies if, for a particular financial year, the

licensee satisfies an authorised officer that the licensee is, or

was, unable to comply with the participation condition for the

year for reasons outside the licensee’s control.

(2) The authorised officer

may decide the number of times, if any,

that the licensee must use, or was required to use, a category C

shotgun in a shoot for the particular year to satisfy the

participation condition.

(3) A decision under subsection (2) may be made on a

proportionate basis, based on whole calendar months, having

regard to the period that the authorised officer is satisfied the

licensee is, or was, unable to comply with the participation

condition for reasons outside the licensee’s control.

120 Condition—requirement to keep participation record

(1) It is a condition of the firearms licence that the licensee must

keep a record of the licensee’s participation in shoots

(participation record).

(2) The participation record must contain the following

information for each shoot—

(a) the date and place of the shoot;

(b) the types of events in which the licensee participated;

(c) if the shoot is conducted at an approved range—the

name and licence number of the range officer

supervising the shoot;

(d) if the shoot is conducted at a place other than an

approved range—the name and the firearms licence

number or driver licence number of the person

supervising the shoot.

Examples of places other than an approved range—

• a Commonwealth approved range

• an interstate range approved under the law of another State

(3) The licensee must enter the information in the licensee’s

participation record immediately after the licensee’s

participation in the shoot has ended.

121 Condition—requirement to have participation record

endorsed as correct

(1) It is a condition of the firearms licence that the licensee must

have an entry in the licensee’s participation record endorsed

as correct by—

(a) if the shoot is conducted at an approved range—the

range officer supervising the shoot; or

(b) if the shoot is conducted at a place other than an

approved range—the person supervising the shoot.

(2) The endorsement under subsection (1) must—

(a) be made on the day of the shoot before the shoot ends;

and

(b) clearly identify the person making the endorsement.

(3) An entry properly endorsed under this section is evidence of

the licensee’s participation in the shoot.

122 Condition—requirement to give completed participation

record to primary target shooting club

(1) It is a condition of the firearms licence that the licensee must

give to an authorised officer the licensee’s completed

participation record for a financial year within 28 days after

the start of the following financial year.

(2) In this section—

completed participation record means a participation record

that complies with sections 120 and 121.

124 Restrictions on issue

(1) The authorised officer may issue the firearms licence only if

the authorised officer is satisfied that—

(a) the applicant is a member of an approved weapons club

that is authorised to conduct military simulation games

using paint-pellet guns; or

(b) the applicant intends to use a category A paint-pellet

gun to engage in military simulation games.

(2) This section is in addition to section 85

128 Restrictions on issue

An authorised officer may issue a firearms instructor’s licence

only—

(a) for a category A, B, C, D, E, H or M weapon (the

weapon); and

(b) to an adult (the applicant); and

(c) if the authorised officer is satisfied that—

(i) the applicant’s genuine reason for possession of

the weapon is to give instruction for either or both

of the following—

(A) an approved safety training course (general)

provided by an approved training provider;

(B) an approved safety training course (security

guard) provided by an approved training

provider; and

(ii) the applicant has the necessary skills and

experience to give the instruction; and

(iii) giving the instruction will not adversely affect

public or individual safety.

129 Additional information to accompany application

An application for the issue, or renewal, of a firearms

instructor’s licence must be accompanied by—

(a) evidence that the applicant has the necessary skills and

experience to give instruction for the relevant course

mentioned in section 128(c)(i); and

(b) evidence that giving the instruction will not adversely

affect public or individual safety; and

Examples of evidence of necessary skills and experience—

• details of current licences

• details of completed training courses

• details of experience handling weapons

• details of experience giving instruction

(c) the name of the approved training provider that will

provide the relevant course mentioned in section

128(c)(I).

131 Condition—regular instruction

(1) It is a condition of a firearms instructor’s licence that the

licensee must give regular instruction for a course mentioned

in section 128(c)(i).

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a licensee is taken to have

contravened the condition mentioned in subsection (1) if the

licensee does not, under section 130, make an entry in the

licensee’s training register for a continuous period of 12

months.

132 Definitions for div 9

In this division—

category A weapon does not include a disguised category A

weapon.

category B weapon does not include a disguised category B

weapon.

From Draft Weapons Act

Section 178 Unlawful possession of weapon prohibited

(2) For subsection (1), a person who possesses a disguised

category A weapon or a disguised category B weapon is taken

to possess a category H weapon.

Definition

disguised category A weapon means a weapon mentioned in

the Weapons Categories Regulation 2010, section 4(1) or (3)

that is disguised as a thing other than a weapon.

Example—

a shotgun or rim-fire rifle disguised as a walking cane or a poacher’s

stick

disguised category B weapon means a weapon mentioned in

the Weapons Categories Regulation 2010, section 5(1) or (3)

that is disguised as a thing other than a weapon.

Example—

a centre-fire rifle disguised as a walking cane or a poacher’s stick

134 Restrictions on issue—generally

An authorised officer may issue a group licence only—

(a) for a prescribed weapon (the weapon); and

(b) to an adult or a body (the applicant); and

(c) if the authorised officer is satisfied that—

(i) for an adult, or a body other than a body mentioned

in subparagraph (ii) or (iii)—the applicant’s

genuine reason for possession of the weapon is a

group need; or

135 Restrictions on issue—group need mentioned in s 132,

def group need, paragraph (a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (vi)

(1) This section applies if the applicant’s genuine reason for

possession of the weapon is a need mentioned in section 132,

definition group need, paragraph (a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (vi).

(2) The authorised officer may issue the group licence only if the

authorised officer is satisfied that—

(a) the need can not be satisfied in another way; and

(b) the stated land, area, place or vessel is suitable for the

use of the weapon to satisfy the need; and

(c) using the weapon on the stated land, area, place or

vessel to satisfy the need will not adversely affect public

or individual safety.

(3) Without limiting subsection (2)(a), in deciding whether or not

the need can be satisfied in another way, the authorised officer

must consider whether the need can be satisfied—

(a) in a way that does not require the applicant to possess a

weapon; or

147 Restrictions on issue—generally

An authorised officer may issue a minor’s licence only—

(a) for a category A, B, C, or H weapon, or a category M

crossbow (the weapon); and

(b) to a minor who is at least 11 years (the applicant); and

(c) if the authorised officer is satisfied that the applicant’s

genuine reason for possession of the weapon is—

149 Restrictions on issue

(1) The authorised officer may issue the minor’s licence only if

the authorised officer is satisfied that—

(a) the need can not be satisfied in another way; and

(b) the stated rural land is suitable for the use of the weapon

to satisfy the need; and

150 Additional information to accompany application

The application for the issue, or renewal, of the minor’s

licence must be accompanied by—

(a) enough information about the need to possess the

weapon for the occupational rural purpose mentioned in

section 147(c)(i) to enable an authorised officer to

decide whether the need can be satisfied in another way;

and

152 Restrictions on issue

(1) The authorised officer may issue the minor’s licence only if

the authorised officer is satisfied that—

(a) the need can not be satisfied in another way; and

(b) the stated rural land is suitable for the use of the weapon

to satisfy the need; and

(2) Without limiting subsection (1)(a), in deciding whether or not

the need can be satisfied in another way, the authorised officer

must consider whether the need can be satisfied—

(a) in a way that does not require the applicant to possess a

weapon; or

(John Howard’s Bullet Proof Vest)

179 Application of sdiv 2

This subdivision applies if—

(a) the application is for the issue, or renewal, of a

miscellaneous weapons licence for a category E

weapon; and

(b) the applicant’s genuine reason for possession of the

weapon is—

(i) a special occupational need for the weapon as

mentioned in section 178(c)(i)(A); or

(ii) an exceptional need for the weapon for

self-preservation as mentioned in section

178(c)(i)(B).

180 Restrictions on issue

(1) The authorised officer may issue the miscellaneous weapons

licence only if the authorised officer is satisfied that the need

can not be satisfied in another way.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), in deciding whether or not

the need can be satisfied in another way, the authorised officer

must consider whether the need can be satisfied in a way that

does not require the applicant to possess a category E weapon.

(3) This section is in addition to section 178.

181 Additional information to accompany application

The application for the issue, or renewal, of the miscellaneous

weapons licence must be accompanied by enough information

about the need for the weapon to enable an authorised officer

to decide whether the need can be satisfied in another way.

191 Application of sdiv 6

This subdivision applies if—

(a) the application is for the issue, or renewal, of a

miscellaneous weapons licence for a category M

crossbow; and

(b) the applicant’s genuine reason for possession of the

category M crossbow, under section 178(c)(ii)(D), is to

engage in the sport of target shooting.

192 Restrictions on issue

(1) The authorised officer may issue the licence only if the

authorised officer is satisfied that the applicant is—

(a) an approved target shooting club that is authorised to

conduct the sport of target shooting using category M

crossbows; or

217 Restrictions on issue

(1) An authorised officer may issue a theatrical ordnance

supplier’s licence only—

(a) for a prescribed weapon (the weapon); and

(b) to an adult or a body (the applicant); and

(c) if the authorised officer is satisfied that—

(i) the applicant’s genuine reason for possession of the

weapon is to conduct the business of theatrical

ordnance supplier; and

(ii) the business will be conducted in a way that will

not adversely affect public or individual safety; and

(iii) the premises from which the applicant will conduct

the business are suitable for conducting the

business of theatrical ordnance supplier; and

(iv) using the premises to conduct of the business of

theatrical ordnance supplier will not adversely

affect public or individual safety.

218 Additional information to accompany application

An application for the issue, or renewal, of a theatrical

ordnance supplier’s licence must be accompanied by—

(a) enough information about the business of theatrical

ordnance supplier to be conducted under the licence to

enable an authorised officer to decide whether the

business will be conducted in a way that adversely

affects public or individual safety; and

Examples of information about the business—

• business structure, for example, sole proprietorship,

partnership

• equipment to be used in the business

• intended client or market base

271 Condition—membership information

(1) It is a condition of a recreational shooting club permit that the

body that is the holder of the permit must give an authorised

officer a notice stating—

(a) when a member of the body stops being a member of the

body; or

(b) when a member of the body is expelled from the body

and the reason for the expulsion.

(2) The notice mentioned in subsection (1) must be given to the

authorised officer within 14 days after the day the member

stops being a member or is expelled.

(3) It is a condition of a recreational shooting club permit that the

body that is the holder of the permit must, upon the request of

an authorised officer, give the authorised officer a notice

stating whether a particular person is a member of the body or

holds a particular position within the body.

(4) The notice mentioned in subsection (3) must be given to the

authorised officer within a reasonable period, of at least 7

days, stated in the notice.

(5) An authorised officer may extend the period mentioned in

subsection (4) if—

(a) the body applies to the authorised officer for an

extension before the end of the period mentioned in

subsection (4); and

(b) the authorised officer is satisfied there are exceptional

circumstances.

272 Duties of body’s representative and members of

governing body

(1) This section applies to the body’s representative, and each

member of the governing body, of a body holding a

recreational shooting club permit.

(2) The person must take all reasonable steps to ensure the body,

its members and each person engaging in an activity

conducted by the body does not contravene a prescribed

provision.

Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the person has given notice

under section 139(3) of the Act stating that the authority of the

person has stopped.

(4) In this section—

prescribed provision means—

(a) chapter 6, part 1, division 1 of the Act; or

(b) chapter 6, part 3 of the Act; or

(c) section 273.

273 Duties of person engaging in club activity

A person engaging in an activity conducted by an approved

recreational shooting club—

(a) must not possess or use a weapon for the activity unless

the possession or use complies with the recreational

shooting club permit; and

(b) must not use a weapon for the activity in a way that is

likely to cause death or injury to a person or unlawful

destruction or damage to property; and

(c) must comply with a safety direction given by the body’s

representative, or a member of the governing body, of

the body that holds the recreational shooting club

permit, unless the person has a reasonable excuse.

Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

281 Adequate supervision

(1) It is a condition of a target shooting club permit that the body

that is the holder of the permit must take reasonable steps to

ensure that each person using a prescribed weapon to engage

in the sport of target shooting conducted by the body is

adequately supervised by—

(a) a range officer appointed by the body under subsection

(2); or

(b) a range officer’s appointee appointed by the range

officer under subsection (2).

(2) A person appointed as a range officer or range officer’s

appointee must be—

(a) an adult; and

b) hold a licence, or an interstate licence, for a firearm; and

(c) have the necessary skills and experience to take primary

responsibility for the supervision of persons using a

prescribed weapon at the shooting range.

(3) In this section—

adequately supervise, persons engaging in the sport of target

shooting conducted by an approved target shooting club,

means take all reasonable steps to ensure the personal safety

of the persons and any other persons also engaging in the

sport of target shooting.

Subdivision 4 Duties

288 Body’s representative and members of governing body

(1) This section applies to the body’s representative, and each

member of the governing body, of a body holding a target

shooting club permit.

(2) The person must take all reasonable steps to ensure the body,

its members and each person engaging in an activity

conducted by the body does not contravene a prescribed

provision.

Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the person has given notice

under section 139(3) of the Act stating that the authority of the

person has stopped.

(4) In this section—

prescribed provision means—

325 Record of maintenance

(1) It is a condition of a shooting range permit that the holder

must keep a record of the maintenance carried out on the

safety infrastructure of the shooting range, as provided under

this section.

(2) The record of maintenance must state—

(a) the date the maintenance was carried out; and

(b) a brief description of the maintenance carried out.

(3) The holder must, before 31 August in each year, give a copy

of the record, to the extent that it relates to maintenance

carried out in the immediately preceding financial year, to an

authorised officer.

(4) An authorised officer may extend the time limit mentioned in

subsection (3) if the authorised officer is satisfied there are

exceptional circumstances.

(5) In this section—

safety infrastructure, of a shooting range, includes, for

example, the baffles, mound, stop butt and retaining walls of

the range.

326 Informing police officer of injury or damage

(1) It is a condition of a shooting range permit that the holder

must inform a police officer of any—

(a) injury to a person caused by a weapon used at the range;

or

(b) damage to property at or in the vicinity of the range

caused by a weapon used at the range, other than

damage to a target or a thing designed as a bullet barrier.

(2) The holder must inform the police officer of the matters

mentioned in subsection (1) immediately after the holder, or if

the holder is a body, the body’s representative, first becomes

aware, or suspects, that the injury or damage has happened.

Subdivision 3 Duties

327 Body’s representative and members of governing body

(1) This section applies to the body’s representative, and each

member of the governing body, of a body holding a shooting

range permit.

(2) The person must take all reasonable steps to ensure the body,

its members, and each person attending the approved range

does not contravene a prescribed provision.

Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the person has given notice

under section 139(3) of the Act stating that the authority of the

person has stopped.

(4) In this section—

prescribed provision means—

(a) chapter 6, part 1, division 1 of the Act; or

(b) chapter 6, part 3 of the Act; or

(c) a condition under subdivision 2; or

(d) section 328 or 329.

General

1 Methods

(1) A firearm may be modified to make it permanently incapable

of being discharged by—

(a) fusion welding under part 2; or

(b) sectioning under part 3.

(2) However, a firearm made of light alloy or plastic may only be

modified to make it permanently incapable of being

discharged by sectioning under part 3.

2 Purpose

(1) The purpose of fusion welding is to weld material into the

barrel of a firearm, and to weld all major parts of the firearm

in a way that can not be reversed.

(2) The purpose of sectioning is to machine or mill all major parts

of a firearm in a way that can not be reversed and to expose

the internal mechanism of the firearm to enable it to be used

for display or instructional purposes.

V16A_S08_0465_AR_.fm — July 28, 2010 5:04 pm Discussion Draft

Schedule 2

Weapons Regulation 2010

Page 266

Part 2 Fusion welding

3 Bolt action rifle

A bolt action rifle may be modified to make it permanently

incapable of being discharged by doing all of the following—

(a) boring a calibre size hole in the chamber;

(b) inserting a close fitting steel rod in the barrel and

welding at the muzzle and breech;

(c) completely breaking off, grinding off or removing the

firing pin;

(d) welding the trigger to the receiver;

(e) welding the bolt to the receiver either—

(i) through the magazine well or the ejection port; or

(ii) along the exposed surface of the bolt for at least 80

per cent of the bolt’s length;

(f) cutting off the magazine lips and removing the spring

and follower;

(g) if the rifle has a quick detachable barrel—welding the

barrel to the receiver;

(h) if the rifle has a tube type magazine—cutting off the

crimped end of the guide, if any, and removing the

spring and follower.

7 Muzzle loading rifle

A muzzle loading rifle may be modified to make it

permanently incapable of being discharged by doing all of the

following—

(a) boring a calibre size hole in the chamber;

(b) inserting a close fitting steel rod in the barrel and

welding at the muzzle;

(c) welding the flash hole closed;

(d) welding the trigger to the receiver;

(e) welding the hammer to the receiver.

8 Single or double barrel shotgun

A single or double barrel shotgun may be modified to make it

permanently incapable of being discharged by doing all of the

following—

(a) boring a hole, approximately 60 per cent of the bore

size, just forward of the chamber (or chambers);

(b) inserting a close fitting steel plug of the length of the

chamber in the chamber (or chambers) and welding at

the breech;

(c) completely breaking off, grinding off or removing the

firing pins, or welding them to the receiver;

(d) welding the trigger to the receiver;

(e) welding the breech lever to the receiver;

(f) welding the barrel or the barrel lug, with a substantial

weld, to the receiver to prevent the barrel opening;

(g) if the shotgun has exposed hammers—welding the

hammers to the side plates or the receiver.

Federal Election 2010 Results

2010-08-22T11:12:00.000+10:00

It appears that we have achieved around 10 000 votes for the Senate in QLD!

This is an incredible result when you consider the very low level of funds available to us, the almost total media black-out (despite some very creative efforts to gain publicity), the relative recency of the commencement of Australia First Party's activities in QLD, the relative size of our group at this stage and the gargantuan opposition we face!!!

A HUGE thank you, on behalf of all of us (and our children) for those who dug deep and found the time, energy and money to contribute in any way to our struggle! You should all be incredibly proud of the fact that we have stood our ground and fought, not for prestige or wealth, but for the sake of the integrity and survival of our society!

An extra special mention goes to Peter Schuback for the most significant contribution of any of us...he poured his own hard-earned dollars into the campaign and literally worked around the clock while simultaneously continuing to run a highly complex business. The rest of us should give ourselves a pat on the back for our efforts as well - I know that every one of us boldly did our bit and I'm hoping we have learned key lessons from this campaign - lessons that see us smarter and stronger - remember that boldness has genius, power and even magic in it! All it takes to realise a dream is to persist in the face of ANY challenge!
Today we are seeing the result as a positive sign - a sign that we have much more support than the mainstream expected of us. It is with this in mind that we now declare our intent to register Australia First Party in QLD well before the next State Election. We will need your help to get the necessary minimum numbers for party registration - and, as we know from the long struggle it took to get the numbers for the Federal Registration, this CAN take considerable time - let's band together and get State Registration done ASAP. Our Federal Registration was only achieved two months before this Federal Election, leaving us very little time to work on the finer details necessary.

Let's get ourselves a longer lead-in time for the State Election!!!

Press Release: Peter Schuback for Senate for Australia First Party

2010-08-19T18:54:00.000+10:00

The Australia First Party is calling for a referendum on the reintroduction of the White Australia Policy.
Many Australians have asked why we are bringing into Australia people from countries that do not assimilate and that do not contribute to the Australian economy.

Many of these people are unskilled and, in many cases, do not respect the Australian way of life; and want to introduce their rules, religions and laws; and come from country's that are ruled by violence and the gun.
Australians are afraid that they are losing their way of life and they can no longer walk the streets of the their own suburbs without fear of being attacked.

Our elderly are afraid to leave their homes to walk to the shops in some suburbs. If a person or group of people come to Australia, they must become part of our country and leave their old ways, religions and laws where they came from.

This is Australia and we must put the needs of Australians first and stop bringing people into the country who will not respect to our way of life or contribute to our society; and we must stop bringing people into our country who want to change our laws and force their religions on our children.

Vote above the line - Group K.

New South Wales Labor Premier Supports White Australia Policy .

2010-08-19T17:15:00.000+10:00

WHITE AUSTRALIA must not be regarded as a mere political shibboleth. It was Australia's Magna Carta. Without that policy, this country would have been lost long ere this. It would have been engulfed in an Asian tidal wave. There would have been no need for the Japanese to invade this country. We would have been swallowed up by the rolling advance of a horde of colored people, anxious to escape the privations of their own countries and prepared to impose their own standards on this country.

It is necessary only to examine the racial composition of present-day Fiji, where the Hindus have elbowed the natives out of the picture, to visualise what could have happened in this country had the White Australia policy not been fought for doggedly at the end of the l9th Century. We were then fighting for our national survival. Had we weakened, the flood gates would have opened and the natural increase of population according to Asian standards would have done the rest. It would then have been too late. This country would have become a pushover for the Asiatics.

The first Federal Platform for the Labor Party, adopted at an Interstate Conference held in Sydney on January 24, 1900, was a model of brevity. It was the platform on which the party fought its first Federal election in the following year. There were only three planks. They were (1) Electoral Reform, providing for one adult one vote. (2) Total Exclusion of colored and other undesirable races, and (3) Old Age Pensions.

The Conference also agreed that the Constitution should contain machinery for the Initiative and Referendum to alter the constitution, and that instead of double dissolutions there should be a National Referendum to settle deadlocks between the two Houses.

But it was the question of White Australia that knit the first Federal Labor Party together. In 1908 when the party decided to draft a much more elaborate platform, the first plank agreed upon was "Maintenance of White Australia." It headed the list.

So the Australian Labor Party was actually brought together with White Australia as its primary objective. Later the word-spinners put it much more elegantly as "The cultivation of an Australian sentiment, based on the maintenance of racial purity."

That was not, however, the real reason for the development of the White Australia policy. It did not have its origin in any idea of racial superiority, or color prejudice. From the start it was a simple bread-and-butter issue. Australian workers were trying to defend their own living standards. They were trying to save their jobs. They knew that unrestricted immigration of colored races would mean the introduction of a kind of industrial Gresham's Law - the bad wages would put the fair wage out of circulation. The white Australian worker would soon be reduced to coolie levels. Having got rid of convict labor, they did not want to be reduced to the rice bowl. Yet that was the threat that was actually hovering over the people of this country.

The man to whom we owe a great deal for saving Australia was Henry Parkes. He was not only a dogged believer in White Australia, but he also had the practical political brain capable of devising ways and means of overcoming the problem.

Trouble first started during the Gold Rush. It didn't take long for news of the strike to reach the gold merchants of Shanghai and Hong Kong. Chinese had flocked to the Californian fields in 1849, so that even today San Francisco has the largest Chinese settlement outside Asia. Then as the Californians pulled up their grub stakes and followed the trail to the new strikes in the Southern Hemisphere, the Chinese followed on. They were the fossickers of the goldfields.

Trouble broke out between the diggers and the Chinese on the Lambing Flat fields in July, 1861. The tough diggers attacked the Chinese and used strong-arm methods. There were all kinds of wild threats. The Government ordered troops into the fields, including artillery, and in the riots that followed one digger was killed. The miners then decided to take an interest in politics, with the elimination of the Chinese as their first objective. Lambing Flat is in fact just as significant in the history of the Labor Party in this State as Eureka Stockade was in Victoria.

Some of the mining companies had discovered that the Chinese were prepared to work longer hours for much lower wages than Australians. That was the chief reason why they were resented. Trouble spread to the shipping companies, and there were strikes brought about by the employment of Chinese on Australian ships.

Chinese were also coming into Australian ports, deserting and starting their own businesses. Parkes saw what was happening in Sydney. He announced that he was against further Chinese immigration. He was attacked by wealthy employers and accused of having a bias against the Chinese because they were colored. They said he was treating them as an inferior race. Parkes retorted:

"They are not an inferior race. They are a superior set of people. A nation of an old, deep-rooted civilisation. It is because I believe the Chinese to be a powerful race, capable of taking a great hold upon this country, and because I want to preserve the type of my own nation, I am and always have been opposed to the influx of Chinese."

The Cowper Government was the first to introduce a poll-tax on Chinese. After Lambing Flat it introduced a Chinese Immigration and Restriction Act which permitted the entry of only one Chinese to every 10 tons' burden of ship, with a poll-tax of £10 on every Chinese permitted to enter, and an annual payment of £4 for every year he remained in the State. Parkes further tightened the Act, and made the poll-tax apply not only to those coming in by sea, but also to those entering from another State.

In 1888 Parkes imposed even more drastic restrictions. He limited the number to one Chinese passenger to every 300 tons, increased the poll-tax to £100, refused them naturalisation and stipulated that they could not work in the mining industry without a permit from the Minister for Mines.

The fight had only just started. It was one thing imposing a poll-tax, but it was another policing it. One Chinese looked very much like another. Many slipped in without paying the head-tax. Gradually, they started to congregate in Chinese quarters in the city and take up their own occupations. Merchants indentured labor from Canton, and had the Chinese tied up with labor contracts that made them little better than slaves.

Furniture-making became one of the chief occupations. They were excellent cabinet makers. But instead of an eight-hour day, they were working twelve and fourteen hours, seven days a week. One of the principal parts of the city in which they congregated was the notorious Wexford Street, behind Mark Foys. It was a narrow, squalid street with lanes running off it, running from Elizabeth Street to Liverpool Street. It was later resumed for the building of Wentworth Avenue. But not before it had many crimes to its discredit, and a bubonic plague scare as well.

The Chinese also had another settlement out in Waterloo, while they had market gardens in Botany. In the city they had their own joss houses, their own restaurants, and their own stalls in Paddy's Markets. The itinerant Chinese vendor with his bamboo over his shoulder, carrying large vegetable baskets at each end, or selling feather dusters from door to door was a feature of inner city life. Personally most of the vendors were popular, and honest to a fault. But the trade unions realised that if the Chinese could get away with long hours and low pay they would not be in the race to get better conditions.

Urged on by the Labor Party, George Reid, in 1897, had a Bill for the Exclusion of Inferior Races passed through both Houses. When it reached the Governor, he decided to reserve it for Royal Assent. It was forwarded to Downing Street, and the British Government ruled that it would infringe on Britain's trading treaties with China, and might even endanger the holding of Hong Kong. So on the advice of her Government, Queen Victoria refused her Royal Assent. Reid returned to the attack, and passed another Bill which authorised the N.S.W. Immigration authorities to apply a dictation test to any intending immigrant, if they so decided. That was the origin of the Dictation Test device, which was later incorporated into the Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1901 and is still there. It has given the lawyers many rich briefs and has had some strange interpretations - even to the extent of being applied to British subjects with the approval of the High Court.

But in 1898 Reid only wanted to keep out the Chinese. There was no real trouble about other colored races. There were a few Hindus outback. There were Afghan hawkers with their camels along the Darling.

In Queensland they had the Kanaka problem with the sugar cane industry. The sugar mills said they couldn't compete with sugar grown with colored labor in the West Indies, or even Fiji. So they recruited island labor from the South Seas, who were called "Kanakas." Polynesians were indentured for five years at nominal wages. That led to the black-birding of labor in the islands by bullying captains. The Queensland Labor Party under Dawson and Fisher led the fight against Black Australia. Sir Samuel Griffiths, later Chief Justice, took up the cause and agreed to legislate to prohibit the importation of Kanakas from the islands. He won the elections and passed the Act. Then the sugar combine got to work. They told him that he would ruin the sugar industry. Griffiths then repudiated his election pledge, on which he had beaten McIlwraith and brought in a number of regulations regarding how the blacks should be employed. Labor kept up the fight in Queensland and eventually won, after agreeing to the proposition that the sugar industry should be subsidised by a bounty to keep it white. That was not until after Federation.

Meanwhile, Labor in New South Wales still had to win its fight. In the very first Labor League Conference in 1891 a motion was carried, and placed on the party's platform providing that all furniture made by Chinese labor should be stamped. It was generally believed that much of the work was shoddy.

Later, conference after conference dealt with the problem. The Furnishing Trade Union led the fight. They contended that white labor could not compete with colored labor because of the hours and conditions.

The Labor Party platform adopted by the 1909 Conference passed a resolution that the following should be placed on the fighting platform to be implemented by the first Labor Government to be elected:

(a) "All Chinese furniture factories to be restricted to 48 hours per week, and that the 48 hours be worked between 7.30 a.m. and 6 p.m., Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and between 7.30 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Saturdays, and that overtime can only be worked after obtaining the sanction of the Department of Labor and Industry."

(b) "All Chinese furniture and other manufactures be so stamped."

That went on to the platform and remained there many years. The McGowen Government did nothing. The Holman Government had too many other matters on its mind, and during the First World War, the trade unions were not so active in their demands. Then John Storey again shelved the Trades Hall requests for action.

It was not until my Government passed the necessary legislation in 1926 that such furniture had to be properly stamped.

It had been almost impossible to police the Factories Act, while the Chinese could be used in back yards and back rooms. The finished goods were sold through wholesalers, and the retailers had no way of telling whether they were made by Chinese or white labor. But the stamping provisions ended all such doubts. The name of the manufacturer had to be clearly shown, and the industrial inspectors did the rest. The union also adopted an O.K. card, so that it was able to police the workers inside the industry, and inspect conditions.

It meant that Chinese employed in the industry had to get the same wages and conditions as other unionists. It ended the unfair competition. It also ended the shoddy furniture business. The union had the right to see that furniture was true to label, and institute prosecutions if any misrepresentation was being made. With all these precautions, it was not long before the threat of colored labor had disappeared from the industry. Trade union action finished the job started by the legislators.

Those who advocate admission of colored labor quotas invariably ignore the economic reasons responsible for the White Australia policy. While they had their origin in the anxiety of Australian workers to maintain their standards of living, the White Australia policy has more than justified itself on national security grounds. If this country had admitted Japanese even to the same degree that Honolulu admitted Japanese, what would our position have been in 1942? Would it be safe to admit unlimited numbers of Indonesians, Hindus or Chinese today?

Even the United States has had to wrestle with the problems of Jim Crowism, racial segregation and color discrimination. Labor didn't want this country to have similar problems. Had we listened to the do-gooders and the crusaders for international brotherhood and racial equality, the barriers would have come down long ago. Our living standard would have been destroyed. We would have had intermarriages of races, half-castes and quarter-castes with all the social dilemmas that invariably follow such racial mixtures. We would have had a Black, Brown and Brindle streak right through every strata of our society. Instead we risked the charge that we were drawing the color line. We decided to keep this country as a citadel of the white peoples. Australia is still White Australia thanks to those who battled against those who wanted to exploit colored labor for their own ends.

We must keep it that way. Jack Lang

Jack Lang was the Premier of New South Wales during 1925-1927 and 1930-1932.

What If There Was A Referendum On The White Australia Policy?

2010-08-18T13:44:00.000+10:00

Australians in growing numbers are concerned that immigration is not just a question of numbers,
but a matter of identity politics. If a referendum was held on immigration, there is no doubt
Australians would legislate for its ending as a program of government.

Australia First Party gives validity to these concerns in this election. Group K for the Queensland
Senate declared today:

" The abandonment of the great White Australia Policy in 1966 was not, as the liberals and leftists
and the globalists and humanists, would have it - the triumph of reason and humanity over racism
and darkness. Rather, it was the start of a process that may see the Euro Australian dispossessed
of his identity and country and our country recolonised. The former Policy was proclaimed by our
forebears as a policy of reason and justice, which set up Australia as a Nation. They harboured no
ideas of superiority or imperialism and they sought friendships with every people conditional upon
all understanding and accepting our right to be ourselves."

Australia First Party will mobilize throughout Queensland after this election and will strive to ensure a State Party is registered for the next State and Council elections. It will lead Australians not just on
economic and social issues as a party based upon the people must, but defend their identity and
heritage against those who would steal it from us. The party does not shirk the hard questions and
will not conceal its commitment to serve the Australian People.

Group K said in conclusion:

"We believe that this election has given the people of Queensland a glimpse at the new force in this
State's politics. Over 100 years ago, our forebears ended slavery on the sugar plantations and on
the properties of the pastoralists and returned the slaves home with our blessing. That was the
great achievement of the White Australia Policy which Australia's present enemies refuse to
acknowledge. Today, the curse of contract labour scars Queensland. It will destroy the livelihoods
of tens of thousands and their families .Over 100 years ago, the threat of a peaceful invasion of
this State by immigration was turned back. Today, whole areas of Queensland are no longer
Australian. The enemies of the Australian People regard these contemporary things as normal and
acceptable. We do not. A vote for Australia First Party today is confirming the heroic past in the
present."

Queenslanders! Vote for Australia First Party, Group K, Senate, on August 21.

AUSTRALIANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!

2010-08-16T20:27:00.000+10:00

We have the right to question politicians’ decisions!

You have the right to speak your mind!

Having the right to true freedom of speech means having the right to debate public policy on any subject.

Third World immigration

The Asianisation of Australia Multiculturalism

Islam, and Muslim extremists

Should you be banned from discussing these topics in public? Should you be banned from expressing your opinion? To both these questions, we say NO!!!

Either we Australians have the right to debate – in public – any public policy, or we don’t have the right to free speech. Choose one or the other – it’s that simple.

Liberal and Labor politicians have brought in laws to fine and jail political opponents who argue against mass immigration, Multiculturalism, and Asianisation. In this respect, these neo-fascist politicians show themselves to be much like the Communists, and assorted Third World dictators.

The government has created so-called “racial vilification” laws, which are actually designed to ensure that they can suppress free speech on immigration issues, and hide the terrible truth about Multiculturalism.

The Communists banned free speech under their regimes. Governments in Third World banana republics often arrest their opponents using anti-democratic laws, trumped-up charges, or politically-motivated prosecutions over legal “technicalities”, in order to silence political opposition. Government-funded Multiculturalists are now operating in the same vein as those Marxists, and tin-pot dictators.

No matter what neo-fascist Multiculturalist laws are passed by Liberal and Labor politicians, their Thought Crime laws are not morally valid. Especially abhorrent are the Multiculturalist “racial vilification” laws wherein telling the truth is not a defence!

Australian juries have the right to refuse to convict anyone who has been arrested for expressing their political and social beliefs. Government campaigns of political intimidation should be opposed by all fair-dinkum Australians.

We Australians are threatened by mass Third World immigration and the political ideology of Multiculturalism.

We have the right to tell the truth.

We have the right to put forward our opinion.

We have the right to use our freedom of speech.

Without these rights, we are not free!!! Join us, and fight back against the politicians!

Our Troops are getting the Message. Are you?

2010-08-16T14:42:00.000+10:00

This was sent via email to one of the Australia First Senate Candidates Peter Schuback. The Author a serving member of our Defence Forces on deployment has kindly taken time out to ask his fellow countrymen to support Australia First on its Senate Bid. . Can you do the same? We thank him for his message and promise to get out there and do our best.

Hi Everyone,

We need to get serious about our country and get these self serving grubs out of power and bring in people who will work for us.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on &** $# @^ *& !@ whilst I am in %^*%

Thanking you in anticipation.

Best Regards,

Senate Candidates Snubbed by MSM.

2010-08-11T19:50:00.000+10:00

A message from Australia First QLD candidate Peter Schuback.

Smaller parties and independent senate candidates are not being given equal time in either the media or in meetings being held to meet the candidates.

Senate candidates are being left out in the cold to try to get their message across to members of the voting public. Issues like homeless people, Health, Pensioner issues, Foster parents, Mental health, Boat people and illegal and over staying foreign nationals, Multiculturalism and immigration are all issues that all senate candidates should be able to address, this is not happening and the public are not getting to see what the potential senators can offer.

Senators are the policeman of the government and as such have the right to pass or knock back bills. I am running for the senate for the Australia First party and we have a message for the members of the public of not only Queensland but Australia and yet we are being ignored. Our party as the name suggests is all about looking after Australians FIRST.

We want to stop all immigration until we have the infrastructure in place to take more people. We need to bring our current infrastructure up to a world’s best standard before we invite any more people here. We want to send every person that enters our country illegally or that over stays their visa back to where ever they have came from. We want more facilities for homeless people, more facilities for people with mental illness and more programs put in place to intervene and look after people before they get to a stage where they are going to harm or kill themselves. We want more money for our pensioners and we want pensioners that return to work after they have retired at 65 for men and 60 for ladies to be able to work for up to 20 hours a week before they pay any tax and before the extra income affects their pensions. (Let’s bring back the skills of the past to educate the young of the present) We want more support for foster parents, (They are the ones that are looking after some of Australia’s Most disadvantaged children) we want to rebuild our industry base and insure our farming communities, fishing and small business people stay strong and viable. We want to bring in sustainable rates for truckies.

If elected to the senate I will be asking for a senate inquiry into such things as petrol prices. Our major food retailers and the prices paid at farm gate price to the price the consumer pays retail. I will also be getting advice on changing our taxation system so that we all pay a fair and equitable amount of tax. I will be pushing for our superannuation monies to be kept in Australia and to be used for major infrastructure programs with the government issuing bonds against that money paying a commercial rate of interest.

A standard gauge railway line from Melbourne to Toowoomba and on to Cairns with a line going from Toowoomba to Darwin hooking up with the Alice Springs to Adelaide line, a water pipe to run from north Queensland along the rail corridor to service every town on that route. Money into our highways and factories to be set up in country and regional areas to build solar hot water and electrical panels that will be supplied to every home and business in Australia to cut green house gasses. These panels would be paid for by the consumers instead of paying for the electricity they use now.

I will be asking that the banking industry be investigated by a senate inquiry and also that we as a country set up another bank owned by the people along the lines of the old Commonwealth bank.

Our pensioners are getting ripped off, their pension was to be 50 % of the basic wage paid to a male worker and those people that are still working are still paying 6.9 % of their tax to pay for that pension. We have to get more medical students into our universities and if a uni student that takes up medicine and signs a contract to spend at least five years in a country and or regional centre after the completion of their course those students would get free university. Any student that fails to honour their contract would have to pay back all university costs plus fifty percent.

We need to train our own doctors and nurses and we need to stop importing doctors that hardly speak or understand English. If you cannot communicate with your doctor how do you tell him or her what is wrong with you. This lack of communication will lead to the deaths of patients. Like I have said there are many issues that need to be addressed and we have a duty of care to insure that all Australians are treated in the best possible way and without fear or favour and that our tax monies go to building a better Australia.

Peter Schuback
Senate Candidate for the Australia First Party
07 41 24 88 99

What do you get when you vote 1 Group K Australia First in QLD.

2010-08-10T18:20:00.000+10:00

**Preferences**
	Candidate	Party
1	Peter SCHUBACK	Australia First
2	Nick MAINE	Australia First
3	Rod EVANS	One Nation
4	Ian J NELSON	One Nation
5	Andrew Mark PETER	Shooters and Fishers Party
6	Chris HUGGETT	Shooters and Fishers Party
7	Terence Leonard CARDWELL	The Climate Sceptics
8	Lance Herbert JONES	The Climate Sceptics
9	Mark WHITE	Independent
10	Don BAMBRICK	Independent
11	Mark Leslie Chapman SMITH	Independent
12	Jarrod John WIRTH	Independent
13	Peter PYKE	-
14	Maurie CARROLL	Independent
15	Anne VETTER	Carers Alliance
16	Vicki HORNE	Carers Alliance
17	Keith DOUGLAS	Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party
18	Michael MANSFIELD	Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party
19	Christopher Ronald TOOLEY	-
20	John DOWELL	-
21	Lachlan GUERIN	-
22	John Richard PYKE	-
23	Russell WATTIE	-
24	E-Jay LINDSAY-PARK	-
25	Mary SPENCER	-
26	Joh EMBREY	Senator On-Line
27	Paul SPENCER	-
28	Scott READING	Senator On-Line
29	Wendy FRANCIS	Family First Party
30	Peter FINDLAY	Family First Party
31	Amanda NICKSON	Family First Party
32	Tony ZEGENHAGEN	DLP - Democratic Labor Party
33	Angelique Maree BARR	DLP - Democratic Labor Party
34	Noel W JACKSON	DLP - Democratic Labor Party
35	Robert THIES	Citizens Electoral Council
36	Maurice Verney HETHERINGTON	Citizens Electoral Council
37	Desiree Lee GIBSON	Australian Sex Party
38	Tim SHEEN	Australian Sex Party
39	Sam WATSON	Socialist Alliance
40	David LOWE	Socialist Alliance
41	Robert FULTON	Liberal Democratic Party
42	Jim FRYAR	Liberal Democratic Party
43	Tony VOGEL	Christian Democratic Party
44	Malcolm BRICE	Christian Democratic Party
45	Jennifer CLUSE	Australian Democrats
46	Paul Joseph STEVENSON	Australian Democrats
47	Kat ALBERTS	Secular party of Australia
48	Peter SHELTON	Secular party of Australia
49	Julie BOYD	Liberal National
50	Shannon FENTIMAN	Australian Labor Party
51	Jenny STIRLING	Greens
52	Russell TROOD	Liberal National
53	David SMITH	Australian Labor Party
54	Brett MASON	Liberal National
55	Jan McLUCAS	Australian Labor Party
56	Elizabeth Louise Alice CONNORS	Greens
57	Barnaby JOYCE	Liberal National
58	Joe LUDWIG	Australian Labor Party
59	George Henry BRANDIS	Liberal National
60	Larissa WATERS	Greens

Australia First QLD Senate How to Vote Card.

2010-08-09T15:02:00.000+10:00

Please download this how to vote card and distribute widely if you are in QLD. Download and print as many as you like, you may even consider putting some out in your street. Man a local polling booth on election day? Hand them out for an hour or stay all day? Put them up at your local shopping centre or notice board. Print out enough to put out at a pre election voting booth. If you cant download them or you cant print any please contact us at afpqld@hotmail.com and we will post some out to you. Remember "A people who are sheep get a government of wolves." Download Here or HERE