No, it's not negative gearing we are talking about here although getting rid of negative gearing would help to rein in the budget deficit.

We are talking about anti-money laundering (AML) legislation. All the government has to do is to bring in the AML legislation it said it would bring in almost 10 years ago and the heat, or at least some of the heat, would come out of the market.

Advertisement

At present, Chinese investors are only permitted to take $US50,000 ($65,413) out of the country. Yet they are regularly paying cash for $1.5 million-plus homes in Sydney and Melbourne.

It is a fair assumption then that most of the money pouring into Australian residential property from China is therefore black money.

The first tranche of the AML legislation was introduced for the financial services and gaming sectors in 2007. It was intended that the second tranche be rolled out the next year covering real estate and other sectors.

Once this second tranche of the AML regime is introduced, it will require the likes of real estate agents and luxury car dealers to identify for the regulator AUSTRAC a whole slew of details about their customers and where the money is coming from.

This will mean anything more than $US50,000 coming out of China may be deemed to be unlawful as it will have breached Chinese foreign investment regulations.

How big is this market, and how much black money are we talking about here?

Credit Suisse estimates some $28 billion of Chinese money has been invested in the Australian housing market over the past six years. Assuming and there is no way to put an accurate number on this that half of that $28 billion is black money, then that's $14 billion of Chinese money inflating Australian house prices.

Market principles are being distorted

Bear in mind that the principle aim of Chinese investors is to diversify their wealth beyond China, in a stable economic and political environment. It is not to buy yield. Therefore, the basic principles of the market are being distorted. Prices have run too high because these buyers are looking for a place to park their cash rather than achieve an investment return.

Assuming the Credit Suisse estimates are correct and some $60 billion in new Chinese investment floods into Australian housing over the next six years, and assuming that half of that is black money, that's $30 billion in black money which will keep prices inflated over the coming six years.

Chinese buyers were "important drivers of house prices", having claimed 23 per cent of new housing stock in Sydney and 20 per cent in Melbourne in 2013-14, according to Credit Suisse.

"If Chinese buyers are on the verge of snapping up the equivalent of a quarter of new supply, we can see why house prices in both cities have outpaced income growth."

Stemming the tide of Chinese capital is no silver bullet for the vexing issue of housing affordability, but it is surely a stride in the right direction and one which is not anti-Chinese, anti-foreign investment, or anti-anything apart from anti-money laundering.

It is politically very doable notwithstanding that politicians and others who already own properties are benefiting personally from the Chinese cash invasion. Moreover, it is economically sensible. There is much hand-wringing about the Reserve Bank further inflating the property bubble if it cuts interest rates to spur economic activity.

Indeed, record low rates, record high property prices, record household debt to income levels (150 per cent plus) and banks lending at 95 per cent loan-to-valuation ratios is potentially catastrophic especially in the event that unemployment rises. So why is the government dithering on AML?

The draft provisions for the second tranche of AML legislation were released in 2007 for an expected roll-out in 2008. It has been quietly delayed ever since even despite international pressure and a measure of condemnation from the Financial Action Task Force, the global body which sets the regulatory and operational standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing.
When Canada tightened up its visa laws early last year, it helped take the heat out of the Vancouver property market (the number one destination for Chinese capital). That only ramped up the billions of dollars plunged into Australia

1973:
1. Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to enable the Australian Parliament to control prices"? Not approved.
2. Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to enable the Australian Parliament to make laws with respect to incomes"? Not approved.
Note: We are being asked to give a private corporation - the Australian Government - permission to control (make laws?) for pricing and incomes. Thank the Lord we weren't that stupid!

1974:
1. Proposed law entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections".
Do you approve the proposed law? Not approved
2. Proposed law entitled "An Act to facilitate alterations to the Constitution and to allow electors in territories, as well as electors in the states, to vote at referendums on proposed laws to alter the Constitution".
Do you approve the proposed law? Not approved.
Note: the territories had been recreated as states of the Aust Govt through the Seas & Submerged Lands Act 1973. Electors in the original states and W.A. already had the right to vote in referendums of this kind.
3. Proposed law entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the members of the House of Representatives and of the parliaments of the states are chosen directly and democratically by the people".
Do you approve the proposed law? Not approved.
Note: in the Cth, those persons were already chosen directly and elected constitutionally by the people so this clearly appeared to have a hidden agenda.
4. Proposed law entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution to enable the Commonwealth to borrow money for, and to grant financial assistance to, local government bodies".
Do you approve the proposed law? Not approved.
Note: Can you see the hidden agenda in this question? There were no local government bodies created in the Constitution, so approving this would have given them recognition.

1977:
1. It is proposed to alter the Constitution to ensure as far as practicable that a casual vacancy in the Senate is filled by a person of the same political party as the Senator chosen by the people and for the balance of his term. Do you approve the proposed law? Approved.
2. It is proposed to alter the Constitution to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections.
Do you approve the proposed law? Not approved.
3. It is proposed to alter the Constitution so as to allow electors in the territories, as well as electors in the states, to vote at referendums on proposed laws to alter the Constitution.
Do you approve the proposed law? Approved.
Note: Same as the request in 1974 which was refused. This time, approved.
4. It is proposed to alter the Constitution so as to provide for retiring ages for judges of federal courts.
Do you approve the proposed law? Approved.

1984:
1. An Act to change the terms of senators so that they are no longer of fixed duration and to provide that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day.
Do you approve this proposed alteration? Not carried

1988:
1. A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to provide for 4 year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Do you approve this proposed alteration?
Note: The Commonwealth Parliament not the Aust Govt
2. A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia.
Do you approve this proposed alteration? Not carried
Note: The Commonwealth is not a democracy and our constitutional elections were already fair.
3. A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognise local government.
Do you approve this proposed alteration? Not carried
Note: Despite this, in 1986 the Australian Government created legislation which gave Local Government the power they wanted. That body however, is still seeking to be included in the Constitution to today.
4. A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion, and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government.
Do you approve this proposed alteration? Not carried
Note: through the constitutional common law judiciary structure, the people already had a right to trial by jury, freedom of religion was guaranteed by s116 of the Constitution, and the Commonwealth was already lawfully bound to just terms. But note the proposed law was NOT for the Commonwealth but for ANY government. So this was a request to approve the imposition of fair terms on the Aust Govt.

In 1999, shortly before the Australian Government introduced the New Taxation System 2000 & the Corporations Act 2001, which corporatized every tier of government and all businesses in the country, the then government implemented a Referendum specifically seeking agreement to the formation of a Republic.

The questions asked of the people were:
A. To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Note:
* which Queen??
* and clearly, the Commonwealth is still in existence, despite no obvious elections since 1974.
Now, we the people agreed to the Queen being the trustee of the Cth, but in this structure, the parliament would have done it. Can you imagine how dangerous that would be - given we can't even trust these people to tell us they are not a de jure government?
B. To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.
The preamble would then have read as follows -

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good. We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:
proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries; never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war; upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law; honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants; mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment; supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all; and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.

Note:
* The Preamble to the first and current Constitution states:
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:
* Only the Australian people were asked to commit themselves to this new version not the Commonwealth people, who would remain in existence as the Commonwealth in its original form is indissoluble.
* Those Australian people were not included as co-contractors in this republic but only asked to commit to its ethics - which In this context means to bind, to be involved to pledge
* The Commonwealth of Australia is a constitutional monarchy so this new body was not created through the will of the people, but as a body of new law which the people would be asked to pledge to.
* There is nothing stating that the people are part of the new Constitution and that it is their voice.

So in simple words - you would not be a share-holder in this new structure, but would be contracting to a business owned by someone else. Who I wonder?

Although the referendum was defeated, people in the major cities and in wealthier areas voted for it, while the rural areas did not.
Note:
1. Government places the majority of financial support into the major cities in particular, so that the rural areas are losing business and are slowly dying.
2. Farmers are slowly being strangled by legislative enforcement and are 'dying' in commercial terms.
3. Yet major Australian rural holdings are being bought by foreign governments, to the extent that in the Northern Territory, properties purchased by the Chinese government are deemed to be actual Chinese soil.
4. Australia is a dry continent, with a massive water storage under the off-centre of the continent, known as the Great Artesian Basin. The Chinese were also permitted to buy 1 property which controls the premier water-flow from Queensland to New South Wales. This property feeds the GAB as well as the rivers in inland Australia.
5. The resulting damage to the environmental flows in the river wetland system it fed, has since been controlled by removing water from the land owners around that system, leaving the Chinese in control of the main water-flow. That water removal has seen the Australian property owners moving into bankruptcy situations.
6. The Aust Govt is also approving massive mining operations in water-storage areas, particularly along the edges of the GAB. Fracking is of immense danger to the Basin as any damage to it would leave the centre of Australia totally without water. Yet it is being approved.

In these manners, farming and rural life is being destroyed, with many people moving to the cities - which will increase the city vote.

So with reference Turnbull's plans to hold a double dissolution - I have to ask myself is this to bring in the referendums in 1974, 1978, 1984 & 1988? And for what purpose?
And I also think the influx of boat people is designed to build up the voting profile in the cities so the Australian Government can make the changes WE THE PEOPLE refuse to approve.

EXTERNAL LINK

I wonder if those who agree that Australia should be run like a business, agree with selling the country off, closing major manufacturing and killing off farmers?
Today the government operates as the Parliament of Australia, they have dropped Commonwealth. Yep, you guessed it, they are a Corporation, structured as a normal company, from top to bottom ( federal down to council) governed by the Corporations act 2001 with no special provisions as Government. The Bonds are the shares and we don't own the bonds. Last I checked 36% are owned offshore and the majority are owned by other Corporations (mostly banks). Ministers are appointed as CEOs at the same time they receive portfolios. (Government Corporations act) Under the Corps act only shareholders get a vote.
The can of worms they do not want opened is starting to rust through.

Do Australias political parties have blanket or over-riding exemption from particular pieces of legislation, such as the Crimes Act and Criminal Code Act that deal with the crimes of Interfering with political liberty, Unwarranted Demands (placed on, or from, a politician), Bribery (of and by politicians), Corrupting Benefits (given to, or received by a politician), Abuse of Public Office (by a politician) and the Obstruction (of a politicians functions)?

To answer these questions, the history of Australias political parties has to be considered and the legislation that affects them has to be examined.

Political parties exist in Australia because they existed under the British Westminster parliamentary system, which is the system of parliament used here, due to this country being colonised by Britain. Political parties came into existence in Britain through the banding together of politicians who had similar ideals and beliefs that often lead them to vote the same way on legislation that came before them in parliament. There was no particular instant whereby legislation was created in order to bring political parties into existence and to give them legitimacy. Political parties simply happened. In Australia, political parties were not even mentioned in The Australian Constitution until 1977 and the referendum on casual Senate vacancies.

Basically, Australias political parties are social groups, regulated by common law that relates to associations, as well as some State and Federal laws that deal with things like taxpayer funding for elections, political broadcasting and advertising, and disclosure of donations. Our political parties do of course, have their own much self-touted, self-authored codes of conduct but these have no legal standing and are therefore abused and ignored continually by party politicians. Anika Gauja, Senior Lecturer, Australian Politics and Government, Comparative Politics and Political Parties, University of Sydney, has written several excellent papers on the laws covering and regulating Australias political parties and their behaviour, and what effect, if any, it has on the way in which they operate.

Amazingly, there is no enabling act or legislation that makes Australian political parties legal; that gives them legitimacy. There are sections in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 which deal with the registration of political parties and give brief interpretations or descriptions of a political party and an eligible political party but they do not provide legitimacy; they are simply rules governing something that already exists, albeit illegitimately.

The current way in which Australias political parties force their members of parliament to vote according to the demands of the party, when voting on legislation in parliament, is not only morally reprehensible but according to the following laws, illegal, as there is no overall exempting legislation or specific exemptions listed for political parties.

CRIMES ACT 1914
PART IIOFFENCES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
Sect 28. Interfering with political liberty
Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995 SCHEDULE
Section 3
Part 7.5 Unwarranted demands
139.1 Unwarranted demands of a Commonwealth public official
A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person; and
(b) the demand or the menaces are directly or indirectly related to:
(i) the other persons capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or
(ii) any influence the other person has in the other persons capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and
(c) the first-mentioned person does so with the intention of:
(i) obtaining a gain; or
(ii) causing a loss; or
(iii) influencing the official in the exercise of the officials duties as a Commonwealth public official.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 years.

139.2 Unwarranted demands made by a Commonwealth public official
A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the official makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person; and
(b) the demand or the menaces are directly or indirectly related to:
(i) the officials capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or
(ii) any influence the official has in the officials capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and
(c) the official does so with the intention of:
(i) obtaining a gain; or
(ii) causing a loss; or
(iii) influencing another Commonwealth public official in the exercise of the other officials duties as a Commonwealth public official.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 years.

Part 7.6Bribery and related offences

140.1 Definition
In this Part: benefit includes any advantage and is not limited to property.
140.2 Obtaining
(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person is taken to have obtained a benefit for another person if the first-mentioned person induces a third person to do something that results in the other person obtaining the benefit.
(2) The definition of obtaining in section 130.1 does not apply to this Part.

141.1 Bribery of a Commonwealth public official
Giving a bribe
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person dishonestly:
(i) provides a benefit to another person; or
(ii) causes a benefit to be provided to another person; or
(iii) offers to provide, or promises to provide, a benefit to another person; or
(iv) causes an offer of the provision of a benefit, or a promise of the provision of a benefit, to be made to another person; and
(b) the person does so with the intention of influencing a public official (who may be the other person) in the exercise of the officials duties as a public official; and
(c) the public official is a Commonwealth public official; and
(d) the duties are duties as a Commonwealth public official.
(2) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew:
(a) that the official was a Commonwealth public official; or
(b) that the duties were duties as a Commonwealth public official.
Receiving a bribe
(3) A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the official dishonestly:
(i) asks for a benefit for himself, herself or another person; or
(ii) receives or obtains a benefit for himself, herself or another person; or
(iii) agrees to receive or obtain a benefit for himself, herself or another person; and
(b) the official does so with the intention:
(i) that the exercise of the officials duties as a Commonwealth public official will be influenced; or
(ii) of inducing, fostering or sustaining a belief that the exercise of the officials duties as a Commonwealth public official will be influenced.

(4) Section 15.4 (extended geographical jurisdictioncategory D) applies to an offence against subsection (1) or (3).

Penalty for individual
(5) An offence against subsection (1) or (3) committed by an individual is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine not more than 10,000 penalty units, or both.

Penalty for body corporate
(6) An offence against subsection (1) or (3) committed by a body corporate is punishable on conviction by a fine not more than the greatest of the following:
(a) 100,000 penalty units;
(b) if the court can determine the value of the benefit that the body corporate, and any body corporate related to the body corporate, have obtained directly or indirectly and that is reasonably attributable to the conduct constituting the offence3 times the value of that benefit;
(c) if the court cannot determine the value of that benefit10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate during the period (the turnover period ) of 12 months ending at the end of the month in which the conduct constituting the offence occurred.
(7) For the purposes of this section, the annual turnover of a body corporate, during the turnover period, is the sum of the values of all the supplies that the body corporate, and any body corporate related to the body corporate, have made, or are likely to make, during that period, other than the following supplies:
(a) supplies made from any of those bodies corporate to any other of those bodies corporate;
(b) supplies that are input taxed;
(c) supplies that are not for consideration (and are not taxable supplies under section 72-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 );
(d) supplies that are not made in connection with an enterprise that the body corporate carries on.
(8) Expressions used in subsection (7) that are also used in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 have the same meaning in that subsection as they have in that Act.
(9) The question whether 2 bodies corporate are related to each other is to be determined for the purposes of this section in the same way as for the purposes of the Corporations Act 2001 .

142.1 Corrupting benefits given to, or received by, a Commonwealth public official
Giving a corrupting benefit
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person dishonestly:
(i) provides a benefit to another person; or
(ii) causes a benefit to be provided to another person; or
(iii) offers to provide, or promises to provide, a benefit to another person; or
(iv) causes an offer of the provision of a benefit, or a promise of the provision of a benefit, to be made to another person; and
(b) the receipt, or expectation of the receipt, of the benefit would tend to influence a public official (who may be the other person) in the exercise of the officials duties as a public official; and
(c) the public official is a Commonwealth public official; and
(d) the duties are duties as a Commonwealth public official.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 year.

(2) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew:
(a) that the official was a Commonwealth public official; or
(b) that the duties were duties as a Commonwealth public official.
Receiving a corrupting benefit
(3) A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the official dishonestly:
(i) asks for a benefit for himself, herself or another person; or
(ii) receives or obtains a benefit for himself, herself or another person; or
(iii) agrees to receive or obtain a benefit for himself, herself or another person; and
(b) the receipt, or expectation of the receipt, of the benefit would tend to influence a Commonwealth public official (who may be the first-mentioned official) in the exercise of the officials duties as a Commonwealth public official.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

Benefit in the nature of a reward
(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (3), it is immaterial whether the benefit is in the nature of a reward.

142.2 Abuse of public office
(1) A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the official:
(i) exercises any influence that the official has in the officials capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or
(ii) engages in any conduct in the exercise of the officials duties as a Commonwealth public official; or
(iii) uses any information that the official has obtained in the officials capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and
(b) the official does so with the intention of:
(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or
(ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

(3) Paragraph (2)(a) applies to a cessation by a person:
(a) whether or not the person continues to be a Commonwealth public official in some other capacity; and
(b) whether the cessation occurred before, at or after the commencement of this section.

149.1 Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person knows that another person is a public official; and
(b) the first-mentioned person obstructs, hinders, intimidates or resists the official in the performance of the officials functions; and
(c) the official is a Commonwealth public official; and
(d) the functions are functions as a Commonwealth public official.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew:
(a) that the official was a Commonwealth public official; or
(b) that the functions were functions as a Commonwealth public official.
(3) For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether the defendant was aware that the public official was performing the officials functions.
(4) Section 15.3 (extended geographical jurisdictioncategory C) applies to an offence against subsection (1).
(5) The definition of duty in section 130.1 does not apply to this section.
(6) In this section:
function :
(a) in relation to a person who is a public officialmeans any authority, duty, function or power that is conferred on the person as a public official; or
(b) in relation to a person who is a Commonwealth public officialmeans any authority, duty, function or power that is conferred on the person as a Commonwealth public official.

So, why then doesnt Australia have a parliament where each individual politician, regardless of whether they belong to a party or not, vote according to their own consciences? Because, these laws are not applied and for these laws to be applied they would need to be tested in a court of law. However, (there is always an however), these laws would need to be taken to court by a politician or legal bureaucrat, in order for them to be tested in front of a judge; a judge that was appointed, by a politician. Therefore, for Australias political parties to be outlawed using existing laws, or at least legally required to have conscience votes on every piece of legislation brought before the parliament, there are two main requirements that need to be found. A politician who feels suitably aggrieved by the treatment they have received from the political party to which they belong when voting on particular legislation on which they do not agree with the party line, and a judge who judges on merit rather than patronage and peers. In other words, it would take a politician with integrity and a firm belief in their own principles and a liberal, impartial judge to carry the case.

Finding the politician would, perhaps, be the easy part as disgruntled party politicians are often quoted anonymously in the media complaining about the direction and decisions forced onto them by their own party. Tasmanias malicious parliament may even produce such a politician. Though, would any current politician actually be willing to give up their career and its associated privileges and would they have the intestinal fortitude to follow through on their convictions, once the guaranteed recriminations started, for the sake of the greater good; the health of Australias democracy? An impartial, liberal minded judge may also very well exist but the chance of them being chosen as the judge to hear the case would be highly improbable.

So, while there is not an enabling act or any legislation that gives Australian political parties legitimacy and there is legislation that prohibits political parties from forcing their members of parliament to vote in accordance with the party line and against the members own consciences, any attempt to have these laws, or lack of laws, tested and actually applied to our political parties would be left in the laps of the gods, or at least those that think they are gods.

EXTERNAL LINK

The point of Sharia Law Courts is that they are directly applicable to how the administrative law courts of the Australian Government operate.

1. People must AGREE to a contract that then binds them to Sharia Law tribunal for disputes
2. The Aust Family Law Court registers the agreement - no questions asked.
3. The Family Law court then upholds that contract and so enforces the sharia law ruling over the people

The person bound to Sharia Law then can NOT demand constitutional protection.

So take out Sharia Law and substitute Administrative Law, take out Family Law Court and substitute Local & District Courts and you get the same result.

The attached article dates from Dec 2015, but you should get the idea.

Quote ..."We are not using sharia tribunals, but we rely on trained Muslim mediators who are legally qualified people we can go to and who advise what to do under Australian law and to get an Islamic divorce, Ms Hussain said."

Clearly, based on tonight's tv story - that is no longer true. We now have fully-accepted Sharia Law Tribunals operating in our face, without any constitutional validation - but with the approval of the Family Law Court - at the very least
America actually brought in laws stating that Sharia Law was completely unconstitutional and therefore a decision in sharia law could hold no force of law in that State. And that law in that State could ONLY operate through the Constitution of both that State AND America.

But as the Aust Govt operate in the same manner - they would not ever want us to think Sharia Law is unconstitutional and without authority. Because it would expose the clear fact that so are their courts.

Is this story a way of 'training' us to the Aust Govt system AND continuing their undermining of the laws of the land.

It will be interesting to see if this story tonight is for or against it.

EXTERNAL LINK

I'm nearly 69. I've worked hard since I was 17. I put in 50-hour weeks, and didn't call in sick in nearly 40 years. I made a reasonable salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, it looks as though retirement was a bad idea, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honour"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in Australia , New Zealand , UK, America and Canada , while no one from these countries are allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country to teach love and tolerance..

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses or stick a needle in their arm while they tried to fight it off?

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of all parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

I'm really tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

I'm also tired and fed up with seeing young men and women in their teens and early 20's be-deck them selves in tattoos and face studs, thereby making themselves unemployable and claiming money from the Government.

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 69. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my grandchildren and their children. Thank God I'm on the way out and not on the way in.
There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
" I'm 69 and I'm tired. If you do not forward this you are part of the problem".

1973:
1. Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to enable the Australian Parliament to control prices"? Not approved.
2. Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to enable the Australian Parliament to make laws with respect to incomes"? Not approved.
Note: We are being asked to give a private corporation - the Australian Government - permission to control (make laws?) for pricing and incomes. Thank the Lord we weren't that stupid!

1974:
1. Proposed law entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections".
Do you approve the proposed law? Not approved
2. Proposed law entitled "An Act to facilitate alterations to the Constitution and to allow electors in territories, as well as electors in the states, to vote at referendums on proposed laws to alter the Constitution".
Do you approve the proposed law? Not approved.
Note: the territories had been recreated as states of the Aust Govt through the Seas & Submerged Lands Act 1973. Electors in the original states and W.A. already had the right to vote in referendums of this kind.
3. Proposed law entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the members of the House of Representatives and of the parliaments of the states are chosen directly and democratically by the people".
Do you approve the proposed law? Not approved.
Note: in the Cth, those persons were already chosen directly and elected constitutionally by the people so this clearly appeared to have a hidden agenda.
4. Proposed law entitled "An Act to alter the Constitution to enable the Commonwealth to borrow money for, and to grant financial assistance to, local government bodies".
Do you approve the proposed law? Not approved.
Note: Can you see the hidden agenda in this question? There were no local government bodies created in the Constitution, so approving this would have given them recognition.

1977:
1. It is proposed to alter the Constitution to ensure as far as practicable that a casual vacancy in the Senate is filled by a person of the same political party as the Senator chosen by the people and for the balance of his term. Do you approve the proposed law? Approved.
2. It is proposed to alter the Constitution to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections.
Do you approve the proposed law? Not approved.
3. It is proposed to alter the Constitution so as to allow electors in the territories, as well as electors in the states, to vote at referendums on proposed laws to alter the Constitution.
Do you approve the proposed law? Approved.
Note: Same as the request in 1974 which was refused. This time, approved.
4. It is proposed to alter the Constitution so as to provide for retiring ages for judges of federal courts.
Do you approve the proposed law? Approved.

1984:
1. An Act to change the terms of senators so that they are no longer of fixed duration and to provide that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day.
Do you approve this proposed alteration? Not carried

1988:
1. A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to provide for 4 year maximum terms for members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Do you approve this proposed alteration?
Note: The Commonwealth Parliament not the Aust Govt
2. A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to provide for fair and democratic parliamentary elections throughout Australia.
Do you approve this proposed alteration? Not carried
Note: The Commonwealth is not a democracy and our constitutional elections were already fair.
3. A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognise local government.
Do you approve this proposed alteration? Not carried
Note: Despite this, in 1986 the Australian Government created legislation which gave Local Government the power they wanted. That body however, is still seeking to be included in the Constitution to today.
4. A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to extend the right to trial by jury, to extend freedom of religion, and to ensure fair terms for persons whose property is acquired by any government.
Do you approve this proposed alteration? Not carried
Note: through the constitutional common law judiciary structure, the people already had a right to trial by jury, freedom of religion was guaranteed by s116 of the Constitution, and the Commonwealth was already lawfully bound to just terms. But note the proposed law was NOT for the Commonwealth but for ANY government. So this was a request to approve the imposition of fair terms on the Aust Govt.

In 1999, shortly before the Australian Government introduced the New Taxation System 2000 & the Corporations Act 2001, which corporatized every tier of government and all businesses in the country, the then government implemented a Referendum specifically seeking agreement to the formation of a Republic.

The questions asked of the people were:
A. To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Note:
* which Queen??
* and clearly, the Commonwealth is still in existence, despite no obvious elections since 1974.
Now, we the people agreed to the Queen being the trustee of the Cth, but in this structure, the parliament would have done it. Can you imagine how dangerous that would be - given we can't even trust these people to tell us they are not a de jure government?
B. To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.
The preamble would then have read as follows -

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good. We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:
proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries; never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war; upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law; honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants; mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment; supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all; and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.

Note:
* The Preamble to the first and current Constitution states:
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:
* Only the Australian people were asked to commit themselves to this new version not the Commonwealth people, who would remain in existence as the Commonwealth in its original form is indissoluble.
* Those Australian people were not included as co-contractors in this republic but only asked to commit to its ethics - which In this context means to bind, to be involved to pledge
* The Commonwealth of Australia is a constitutional monarchy so this new body was not created through the will of the people, but as a body of new law which the people would be asked to pledge to.
* There is nothing stating that the people are part of the new Constitution and that it is their voice.

So in simple words - you would not be a share-holder in this new structure, but would be contracting to a business owned by someone else. Who I wonder?

Although the referendum was defeated, people in the major cities and in wealthier areas voted for it, while the rural areas did not.
Note:
1. Government places the majority of financial support into the major cities in particular, so that the rural areas are losing business and are slowly dying.
2. Farmers are slowly being strangled by legislative enforcement and are 'dying' in commercial terms.
3. Yet major Australian rural holdings are being bought by foreign governments, to the extent that in the Northern Territory, properties purchased by the Chinese government are deemed to be actual Chinese soil.
4. Australia is a dry continent, with a massive water storage under the off-centre of the continent, known as the Great Artesian Basin. The Chinese were also permitted to buy 1 property which controls the premier water-flow from Queensland to New South Wales. This property feeds the GAB as well as the rivers in inland Australia.
5. The resulting damage to the environmental flows in the river wetland system it fed, has since been controlled by removing water from the land owners around that system, leaving the Chinese in control of the main water-flow. That water removal has seen the Australian property owners moving into bankruptcy situations.
6. The Aust Govt is also approving massive mining operations in water-storage areas, particularly along the edges of the GAB. Fracking is of immense danger to the Basin as any damage to it would leave the centre of Australia totally without water. Yet it is being approved.

In these manners, farming and rural life is being destroyed, with many people moving to the cities - which will increase the city vote.

So with reference Turnbull's plans to hold a double dissolution - I have to ask myself is this to bring in the referendums in 1974, 1978, 1984 & 1988? And for what purpose?

And I also think the influx of boat people is designed to build up the voting profile in the cities so the Australian Government can make the changes WE THE PEOPLE refuse to approve

He's now elected mayor of London.
Saw a post on Facebook
Hitler couldnt take London, but mohamhead has??

He took his oath on the Koran, so he puts Islam before his country. His brother-in-law was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and apparently Sadiq Khan is related to four members of a proscribed extremist organisation. One of his aides, Shueb Salar, had to be eventually fired for writing about killing Jews.

Sadiq Khan worked for Liberty civil rights organisation, which included at that time Azad Ali on its board. Azad Ali wanted to kill British soldiers.

Sadiq Khan has represented the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan - after Louis Farrakhan said, we want to kill all the whites.

Sadiq Khan has represented Ali Dizaei, the corrupt Muslim policeman who went to jail for perverting the course of justice.

Sadiq Khan has represented Babar Ahmad, a terrorist linked to al-Qaeda.

Sadiq Khan has represented Shaker Aamer, who toddled off to Syria with a false passport, obviously to do some charity work, according to Sadiq Khan - of course he didn't, the British Intelligence want to know about him.

Sadiq Khan represented Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is wanting to kill Jews around the world, stone homosexuals to death and adulteresses to death.

Sadiq Khan's represented the Muslim Council of Britain after after they were dropped by the Labour government for being basically linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

He has been on Press TV in Iran, calling moderate Muslims Uncle Toms, because they are not proper Muslims, because they're moderates.

He shared stages repeatedly with Muslims calling for the murder of Jews and for the takeover of the West, and because he's represented these people, he's linked to Cage's Adnan Qureshi, who said that Jihadi John was a beautiful young man.

You'll reap what you sow London!!