Smoke and mirrors

ON 22 January 2015 I wrote to every National and Liberal MP in the federal parliament asking this of them:-

If a politician were to find out about something that might or might not be a crime should they make that decision themselves or should it be left up to the police? I know most state crimes acts require all who are aware of a crime to let the police know otherwise they risk being charged with perverting the course of justice, especially if the politician and potential criminal are mates and there has been some sort of monetary or political advantaged gained by staying quiet.

 I ask because the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet declared in an FOI request, 2014-159, in October last year, that Mr Abbott is still a dual citizen of Britain and Australia. They said his renunciation paperwork for the British citizenship does not exist.  If a politician were to find out about something that might or might not be a crime should they make that decision themselves or should it be left up to the police? I know most state crimes acts require all who are aware of a crime to let the police know otherwise they risk being charged with perverting the course of justice, especially if the politician and potential criminal are mates and there has been some sort of monetary or political advantaged gained by staying quiet.

  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B42C_wWg31otWnE4Z0dtVEZpYzA/view

I have informed the Attorney General Senator Brandis of this and he just ignores me. I thought it normal for MPs to respond to correspondence, he doesn't bother. I first told him of a possible problem in May 2014 and again after the FOI was completed.

Everyone knows Tony Abbott was born in England to a pommie father giving him automatic British citizenship. The date of getting Australian citizenship is a bit clouded, he claims citizenship by descent, but his old mum had to renounce her Aussie citizenship to get the ten pound pom boat trip. We didnt give out trips not even to the mother of a future prime minister. The best I could find out is he got Australian citizenship the normal way in 1981 to comply with the Rhodes Trust and so he could get the Rhodes dollars for Oxford. His citizenship file is now a secret document in the National Archives which sort of defeats the purpose of a national archive.

He has dual nationality and hasn't renounced his Britishness.

He has entered parliament at 8 elections where he signed a declaration for the Australian Electoral Commission stating he has renounced his British citizenship and complies with section 44 of the constitution. Eight counts of fraud to enter parliament makes him a criminal.

Now that you are aware of the crime or potential crime will you advise the police or make the decision yourself that all is OK? I would hope you forward the matter to the CDPP, the AG department and the AFP or at least ask a question in parliament so we can ll find out what's going on.

 Please advise what you will be doing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Australia Day Prime Minister Abbott announced that Prince Phillip, the defacto King of England, Crown Prince of Greece and Prince of Denmark and God to the Tanna people was to be made an Australian knight.

Was this really such utter political stupidity or something so massive his National and Liberal colleagues would not bother asking about his nationality?  The greatest smoke and mirrors act the world has seen?

Ms Butler kindly wrote and asked him for a copy of the renunciation papers on the 23rd of January.  As of the 28th his office has had me on hold for about 24 minutes,transferred me to and fro from the Prime Ministers Office to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and back again and been promised, probably on a stack of bibles, that someone will get in touch with me.

Is it smoke and mirrors or have I been at this so long I believe nothing the man ever does is done straight up and up front?





If you want to keep me out of poverty, please send a penny or two.  I am one of those pov-liners who can't afford to drive a car and for who a cup of coffee or a glass of beer is out of the question.

A reply from Hon Terri Butler MP

I have written to a lot of politicians in the past 15 months or so about Mr Abbott's citizenship.

Ms Butler has replied.

First up this is the email I sent to her :-

If a politician were to find out about something that might or might not be a crime should they make that decision themselves or should it be left up to the police? I know most state crimes acts require all who are aware of a crime to let the police know otherwise they risk being charged with perverting the course of justice, especially if the politician and potential criminal are mates and there has been some sort of monetary or political advantaged gained by staying quiet.

 I ask because the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet declared in an FOI request, 2014-159, in October last year, that Mr Abbott is still a dual citizen of Britain and Australia. They said his renunciation paperwork for the British citizenship does not exist.  If a politician were to find out about something that might or might not be a crime should they make that decision themselves or should it be left up to the police? I know most state crimes acts require all who are aware of a crime to let the police know otherwise they risk being charged with perverting the course of justice, especially if the politician and potential criminal are mates and there has been some sort of monetary or political advantaged gained by staying quiet.

  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B42C_wWg31otWnE4Z0dtVEZpYzA/view

I have informed the Attorney General Senator Brandis of this and he just ignores me. I thought it normal for MPs to respond to correspondence, he doesn't bother. I first told him of a possible problem in May 2014 and again after the FOI was completed.

Everyone knows Tony Abbott was born in England to a pommie father giving him automatic British citizenship. The date of getting Australian citizenship is a bit clouded, he claims citizenship by descent, but his old mum had to renounce her Aussie citizenship to get the ten pound pom boat trip. We didnt give out trips not even to the mother of a future prime minister. The best I could find out is he got Australian citizenship the normal way in 1981 to comply with the Rhodes Trust and so he could get the Rhodes dollars for Oxford. His citizenship file is now a secret document in the National Archives which sort of defeats the purpose of a national archive.

He has dual nationality and hasn't renounced his Britishness.

He has entered parliament at 8 elections where he signed a declaration for the Australian Electoral Commission stating he has renounced his British citizenship and complies with section 44 of the constitution. Eight counts of fraud to enter parliament makes him a criminal.

Now that you are aware of the crime or potential crime will you advise the police or make the decision yourself that all is OK? I would hope you forward the matter to the CDPP, the AG department and the AFP or at least ask a question in parliament so we can ll find out what's going on.

 Please advise what you will be doing.

 Thanks for your time and patience.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And her reply

Dear Tony

Thanks for emailing me.

As you’d know, Britain is a foreign power for the purposes of section 44(i) (Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30; 199 CLR 462; 163 ALR 648; 73 ALJR 1016). That suggests that if the Prime Minister had yet to renounce his British citizenship before being re-elected in 2013, he would be ineligible to sit.

I understand the Prime Minister’s office has said that the Prime Minister has renounced his British citizenship. If so, he would have done so by paperwork filed with the British government, which may explain why there aren’t Australian government records amenable to FOI. Not having seen any proof that the claim is a lie, I am not in a position to make any statement as to its veracity. I’d say that the person best placed to know the Prime Minister’s citizenship status is the Prime Minister himself.  For that reason I accept his statement at face value. Having said that, I intend to write to him, in the terms of the enclosed letter, encouraging him to provide his declaration of renunciation, to avoid the need to continue to discuss this matter.

It appears to me that if a person believed that an MP, including the Prime Minister, was not eligible to hold his or her seat, the proper approach would be to seek a remedy from the High Court. As you will have seen from the Hill and Kelly cases, that is generally done as a petition to the Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. You could also consider a claim under section 46 of the Constitution which allows a citizen to seek that the MP be financially penalised for sitting while ineligible.

If it turned out that the Prime Minister was eligible, you wouldn’t get relief from the court. If, on the other hand, the Prime Minister wasn’t eligible when elected in 2013, it would seem likely that the court would void the election for his division, and a by-election would occur (as it did in the Kelly case). I suspect if that was to occur the Prime Minister would win that by-election, but of course that would be a matter for the voters in his Division.  (I would make the observation that if all that was achieved through court proceedings and an expensive by-election was to maintain the status quo, that would be a shame.)

If you believe that he has signed any false declarations, that is a matter that you might consider referring to the police. For my own part, not having seen any evidence that a false declaration has been made, I’m not going to make allegations to that effect.

Having made all of those observations, I’d say that I have many, many disagreements with the Prime Minister. I believe he’s wrong on just about every issue of public policy about which I’ve heard his views. I disagree with his government’s attacks on pensioners, students, families, working people, and households generally. I vehemently oppose his attacks on Medicare and on access to education, among many other things. 

I hasten to add that nothing in this email is to be taken as legal advice. You should seek your own advice, especially if you’re considering commencing court proceedings. You may also be interested in this e-brief (which I suspect you’ve already seen) about section 44 from the parliamentary library: http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/publications_archive/archive/section44

Best wishes

Terri Butler MP

And her letter to Mr Abbott is here 

I did the polite thing and asked Ms Butler if she minded me publishing this letter and she replied:- 

Hi Tony

I don’t mind at all.

If you do publish it (and this response), it’s important to emphasise that anyone considering action should take legal advice first. I haven’t had to look at time limits for Court of Disputed Returns actions for some years, and I have never had to look at time limits for actions under section 46 for financial penalties. And I’m not in a position to provide legal advice, myself, as I’m not presently practising.

I was up in Rocky yesterday, and someone raised this issue with me. I told her my view is that its best to run only your strongest arguments, because running your weak ones undermines your strong ones. I think our strongest arguments against Abbott are his policies and ideology, not his citizenship status.

Regards,

Terri

So there you have it.  A politician asking Mr Abbott to show the world his renunciation papers. 

Thank you so much Ms Butler.

I will of publish here any reply from Mr Abbott.  I have asked his office on at least a dozen occasions to provide details of the renunciation papers, so hopefully Ms Butler's letter will get a response.

And of course for regular readers of my blogs this is where the poverty bit goes.

If you want to keep me out of poverty, please send a penny or two.  I am one of those pov-liners who can't afford to drive a car and for who a cup of coffee or a glass of beer is out of the question.

Letter to shadow Attorney General

Dear Mr Dreyfus

If a politician were to find out about something that might or might not be a crime should they make that decision themselves or should it be left up to the police? I know most state crimes acts require all who are aware of a crime to let the police know otherwise they risk being charged with perverting the course of justice, especially if the politician and potential criminal are mates and there has been some sort of monetary or political advantaged gained by staying quiet.

 I ask because the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet declared in an FOI request, 2014-159, in October last year, that Mr Abbott is still a dual citizen of Britain and Australia. They said his renunciation paperwork for the British citizenship does not exist.

I have informed the Attorney General Senator Brandis of this and he just ignores me. I thought it normal for MPs to respond to correspondence, he doesn't bother. I first told him of a possible problem in May 2014 and again after the FOI was completed.

Everyone knows Tony Abbott was born in England to a pommie father giving him automatic British citizenship. The date of getting Australian citizenship is a bit clouded, he claims citizenship by descent, but his old mum had to renounce her Aussie citizenship to get the ten pound pom boat trip. We didnt give out trips not even to the mother of a future prime minister. The best I could find out is he got Australian citizenship the normal way in 1981 to comply with the Rhodes Trust and so he could get the Rhodes dollars for Oxford. His citizenship file is now a secret document in the National Archives which sort of defeats the purpose of a national archive.

He has dual nationality and hasn't renounced his Britishness.

He has entered parliament at 8 elections where he signed a declaration for the Australian Electoral Commission stating he has renounced his British citizenship and complies with section 44 of the constitution. Eight counts of fraud to enter parliament makes him a criminal.

Now that you are aware of the crime or potential crime will you advise the police or make the decision yourself that all is OK? As Shadow Attorney General I would hope you forward the matter to the CDPP, the AG department and the AFP.

 Please advise what you will be doing.

 Thanks for your time and patience.




If you want to keep me out of poverty, please send a penny or two.  I am one of those pov-liners who can't afford to drive a car and for who a cup of coffee or a glass of beer is out of the question.

Queensland upper house

The Queensland upper house was abolished in March 1922, 62 years after first operating as a house of review.  The history of the end of the Legislative Council  is pretty nasty politically.  The Labour party wanted to enact reforms but the landed gentry who controlled the council didn't want those changes.  Only after the governor stacked the chamber with 14 labour members did the numbers add up to get rid of the house of review.  Messy,tacky and party political.

The house of review needs restored but without the political sluttery of political parties.  I would suggest a number of people be chosen by lot form the electoral roles to sit in the upper house and to act as a true house of review.  My guess would be a third of the number of members in the lower house, about 30 at the moment. 29 and a big bit if you want to be mathematically pedantic.  One could be leader of the upper house and the other 29 would provide an odd number that wouldn't need to be disputed when ti comes to voting, at least not very often.

I would see them being selected on the last sitting day of each year and serving from the first sitting day until the last sitting day of every calendar year. The members would be paid the same as the lowest paid of the lower house MPs and would have very limited access to the shocking freebees that most MPs get and claim.  There would be an electoral office allowance, one or two public servants in the upper house MPs home town chosen by the Public Service commissioner to stop nepotism.  The Upper house MJP would get a flight to Brisbane for sitting days and a flight from Brisbane.  travel in and around the capital would be at the MPs own expense.  They would be given free meals in the parliament restaurant and would be housed at a hotel near parliament at government expense.  If they do not like the idea of that hotel they can choose to live elsewhere at their own expense.  MPs from Brisbane,Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast would use public transport to get to parliament each day.

The work day would be 9 to 5 for the upper house MPs, no exceptions, no overtime.  A public service staff would be provided to explain legislation to the members, to answer any questions raised by the members and to keep them fully informed on happenings in the other house.

The upper house MPs would vote on allowing legislation, laws and rules to be passed onto the Governor of Queensland for ratification and signing.

The Upper house would be a house of review and can not make its own legislation.

Choosing people by lot would mean there would be the chance of criminals being chosen, so long as they aren't currently in jail I see no problem.  And cynically speaking they can't be worse than some of hte criminals we have in parliament via the party political process.  We could have racists and bigots and anarchists in the mix, but statistically speaking there are very few of them and a lot more " normal" people.

So what do you think? A valid alternative?  This is along the lines of the Ancient Greek way of running a democracy. Their thoughts were that you would get people working hard for their state so as avoid themselves and their families suffering the shame of producing an idiot in charge.

Please pass on to politicians who you might think would appreciate a fresh view on the political world. The political parties will be dead set against such a set up as I have suggested because they will not have power.  Power corrupts and that can not be shown more clearly than the history of Queensland parliament and politics.






If you want to keep me out of poverty, please send a penny or two.  I am one of those pov-liners who can't afford to drive a car and for who a cup of coffee or a glass of beer is out of the question.

National security hotline

I returned my fridge magnets unopened many years ago.  One of millions of Australians to do that.

Now I have actually written to them.


If you want to keep me out of poverty, please send a penny or two.  I am one of those pov-liners who can't afford to drive a car and for who a cup of coffee or a glass of beer is out of the question.

 



Dear sir madam

Tony Abbott is Prime Minister of Australia.
He was born in the UK to a British father and got automatic British citizenship from his birth.  The only way he can renounce that citizenship is to pay a fee and fill in a form RN and lodge that in the UK with the British Home Office.
In 1981 he got Australian citizenship to comply with the Rhodes Trust, this did not negate or remove his British citizenship. His citizenship file is now a secret document at the National Archives of Australia, that is an extraordinary situation.
In 1994 he entered parliament and has done at 7 subsequent elections.
IN October 2014 the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet announced in a freedom of information request that Mr Abbotts renunciation of British citizenship papers do not exist.  This effectively makes him in the job illegally.

S44 of the constitution does not allow multiple nationalities for members of federal parliament.
Mr Abbott has signed 8 false declarations for the Australian Electoral Commission to enter parliament in which he declared he complied with the constitution.

The problems for national security come from other parts of our constitution, it doesn't recognise a prime minister as such, just the executive to pass legislation to the Governor General for approval.  This means that every law and decision made during this current parliament is invalid, as is every law and decision made while Mr Abbott was part of the Howard government executive.

The legal implications are enormous, the financial implications more so.  It also puts in doubt many of the United Nations decisions made with Australia as chair of the various committees in that organisation.  His declaration of war against ISIS and the involvement of Australian troops in that theatre of war may be illegal and in contravention of all international war conventions and agreements.

As the body responsible for protecting our nation you must remove Mr Abbott from the position of Prime Minister before any further damage is done and have the courts deal with him.  As the body responsible for protecting our nations security you must announce to the country the problems caused by a man intent on entering politics illegally.  He has a law degree from the University of Sydney and I know from discussion with students there that the Australian constitution is taught vigorously there, he knew exactly what he was doing.  You and the Governor General must recall parliament and have our properly elected representatives do all they can to save the country from catastrophe.  You and the Governor General must conduct an audit of citizenships for every member of parliament with potential dual nationalities and remove and prosecute anyone who can not prove they have renounced their foreign citizenship legally and before standing for election.

Yours sincerely

Paranoid or are they really that petty and nasty?

Click on the paranoia button or ask if I am being reasonable and some very powerful politicians are being petty to the utmost.


I have problems with my neighbours,they are housos in Queensland department of housing units. The noise, the drug dealing, the abuse I get regularly, the police visits to arrest yet another person in the two units, and then the organophosphate chemical attack the last time I dared complain about MnM foul mouthed misogynistic trash bad white rap muzac being far too loud.

Five years ago my dog got baited because I dared complain about the foul mouthed skank living in the junkie house.

They dont all pay rent to housing which is another bug bear. If you live in government housing, it is cheap, subsidised at least pay rent FFS.

 Since the old lady left in Christmas 2013 the block of two has become a drug commune.  The new arrival is fresh out of jail for car theft, smashing a cop shop in a local shopping centre, stealing luggage,shop lifting and drugs.  Her daughter is 8 or 9 and has been heard  to scream I will fucking kill you, threatening mummy dear with a kitchen knife.  The daughter came round to our place crying that mum was using the needle again and she had promised not to.  Nice couple of houses,the front one has been known to have people sleeping in the garage, needs be I suppose.  But the low life scum sleeping there used to use the old lady behind garden as a toilet.  Enough is enough and the organophosphate attack was the last straw.  When I complained about the noise today I asked if she had had her daughter checked out and monitored and then the junkie started in.  Foul mouthing me.  Being old and grey the obvious is " fuckin pedo".  He shit when I asked if his daughter and 2 friends were checked out after the organophosphate attack, he was off his scone when that happened and didn't know.

NUMBER TWO

I have problems with NBN, like most other Australians, but today I learned that it may be up to ten years before my part of the world gets connected. My latest speed test for ADSL2 is pathetic.

 So am I being paranoid or is this normal for government inaction?

Are Tim Mander and Campbell Newman being legitimate politicians in not doing anything about the abusive drug commune in a government housing duplex?  Is it normal for my suburb to be shifted out to up to ten years before we get a sniff of NBN?

Or is this a little bit of petty retribution for me daring to ask that Tony Abbott, this country's Prime Minister, do what all the rest of us have to do and follow the law?

Time will tell, I just hope I survive the drug commune and that the library stays open with interweb when my interweb connection finally kicks the bucket.

Any thoughts and most especially from the politicians involved and perhaps the labour party as they are the politicians not involved and hiding from being involved.

If you want to keep me out of poverty, please send a penny or two.  I am one of those pov-liners who can't afford to drive a car and for who a cup of coffee or a glass of beer is out of the question.