Federal Election 2019: Meet The Great Australian Party

Summary

Website: https://www.thegreataustralianparty.com.au/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greataustralianparty/
Slogans:
For the restoration of the Commonwealth.
Themes: Another One Nation spin-off party, but taking the libertarian route rather than the white supremacy route. Conspiracy theorists. Possibly sovereign citizens.
Electorate:
Upper House: NSW, QLD, SA, VIC, WA
Lower House: Bean, Casey, Fraser, Newcastle, O’Connor
Preferences: The Great Australian Party has gone above and beyond in their preferencing, drat them, though not all the way to the bottom of the ballot.  Their top picks include the Democratic Labour Party, the Christian Democrats, Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party, the Australian Conservatives, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers, and the CEC.  Rise Up Australia, Love Australia or Leave, Katter’s Australian Party, the Australian Christians and the Liberal Democrats are also popular choices.  Their tickets generally stop at the Coalition.

Did you notice what was missing from this roll-call of conservative Christian and right wing nationalist parties?  That’s right – Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is noticeably absent.  I think someone is still feeling cross at having been kicked out…

Policies & Commentary

“You know what Australia needs?  Another One Nation spin-off party!”, said nobody ever.

Except, apparently, Rod Culleton.

(Well, and also Fraser Anning.  I feel we really need to take a good long look at ourselves in the mirror as a nation, if this is what we are coming to.)

Dear God.

The Great Australian Party, as you may have surmised, is the brainchild of former One Nation Senator Rod Culleton.  Culleton’s political career was meteoric, in the sense that it started off on a high note and plunged rapidly into the ground.  He was elected as a Senator for Western Australia on the One Nation ticket in 2016, but resigned from the party to sit as an independent on December 18 of that year.  Five days later, the Federal Court held that he was bankrupt, and in January, it was determined that as a result of this bankruptcy, he was not eligible to sit in Parliament.  Culleton disagreed; his appeal was dismissed on February 3 by the Full Court of the Federal Court, and on the same day the High Court found that he was ineligible to sit in any case due to a criminal conviction in NSW.

Culleton did not accept either of these rulings, and promptly appealed to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom for redress.   So, basically, to the Queen.  One has to give him credit for persistence, and originality.  I’m not sure if there has been an outcome to this appeal (though I’m not at all sure it would have any bearing on his ability to sit in our Parliament if there was), but Culleton continues to refer to himself as a ‘Senator in Exile’.

Given these promising beginnings, I can hardly wait to see what the GAP has in store for us.

Welcome to The Great Australian Party website – the home of true change for Australians.

The Commonwealth Constitution dictates that you are the “Supreme, Absolute, Uncontrollable Authority” in this country.  As such, it is now high time to give the power back to the people of this great country and that is what “The Great Australian Party” is all about!

Supreme, absolute and uncontrollable, eh?  All of us?  Individually?  That sounds exciting.

The GAP then directs us to the Know Your Rights website, which we shall investigate shortly, and also to Rod Culleton’s own website, which appears to be a website in exile, since the link goes nowhere and I can’t find that website on Google.  They then provide some policy principles which are kind of libertarian only a bit weirder.  For example, here they are on the subject of taxation:

1.Taxation reform consistent with the Commonwealth Constitution.
A) As inherited, all taxes are voluntary for all subjects of the Commonwealth – all public infrastructure to be funded by the National Estate (All commodities and natural resources within the Commonwealth of Australia).
B) We will show that the entire country can be successfully funded through the correct taxation of corporations without the need for people to pay personal income tax.
C) The source of this funding shall be through consolidated revenue according to the Commonwealth Constitution.

They also want to restore the old public Commonwealth bank to protect people’s investments, get rid of local government, reform legislation along lines that are unintelligible to me, but I think it might be something to do with the Queen.  (Speaking of the Queen, when I glanced at this website a couple of weeks ago, there was definitely something about us all being the Queen’s subjects, but that’s gone now.  I’m therefore taking some screenshots today, in case they do an Aussie Battler on us and change all their policies.)

They want to ‘focus law enforcement on eliminating true crimes – i.e. any that create an actual victim’, which is to say, they don’t like traffic fines or prohibition of drugs.  And they also want to ‘Eliminate any uncorroborated evidence being admitted to court’, which is a great way to reduce prosecutions for sexual assault, not to mention eliminating almost all possibility of prosecution for child sexual abuse, which doesn’t tend to be reported until years after it happens.  They also want to eliminate the Family Court and replace it with mediation counselling, which I’m sure will work just brilliantly in cases of family violence.

Basically, if you have any sort of care for victims of sexual assault or family violence, this is a party you should be avoiding like the plague.

They also want to

Adhere to Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – ie. no forced medication (vaccinations, fluoride, forced mental health care).

Of course they don’t.  This is not a party that believes in any sort of mutual responsibility.

Since their page is quite short, I thought I’d take a quick look at the Know Your Rights page that they so kindly linked to, and oh boy.

Our first aim is to educate you and awaken you ‘wake people up to the TRUTH that the governments and those who are REALLY in power have been suppressing for many years.  For those who are just starting down this path of “awakening”, we strongly recommend that you view the following video, from Scott Bartle, that really helps to expose the truth about the so-called “Australian government”.

They have lots of videos, form letters and information booklets on how to understand and exercise your rights (and stop paying fines, fees and taxes while gaining freedom, power and control).  Apparently, our freedoms and liberties have been stolen from us.  Fines are illegal.  Taxation is voluntary and nobody can make you do it.  Banks are evil (OK, they may be onto something with that one).  Vaccination laws must be challenged.

There is a whole section on how the Constitution means that no state-based laws apply to anyone.  Also:

A State shall not make ANYTHING other than gold or silver coin legal tender in payment of a debt.  Remember this any time you have any State debt to “pay” that is over $20 – see Sections 9, 11, 16 & 22 of the Currency Act 1965 for further details.

Honestly, I would love to set a Constitutional lawyer loose on that page and see what they made of it.

They also talk about the Strawman, which is the ‘difference between your ALL CAPS “person” – which is what the Government deals with – and you, the flesh and blood human being.’  There is something about all this which sounds very Sovereign Citizen to me.

And yes, they are excited about the Great Australian Party, which they claim as their own.  Oh, and here’s the bit about the Queen!  I knew I wasn’t imagining it!

Many of our Members have asked us for a copy of the 15 page letter that senator Rodney Culleton recently sent to various Members of Parliament regarding the unlawful removal of The Queen and the subsequent cover up of that and we are happy to announce that we have a copy of that letter available, which you can download via this link.

Last of all, they have a page called Conspiracy??? , which caused me to shriek so loudly in rage that my husband came running in to check if I was OK.

This is the page where we learn that the Port Arthur Massacre was faked in order to rob us of our guns, that 9/11 and the Paris 2015 attacks were false flag events to allow the government to start wars and control us better, and that the loss of Malaysian Airline flights MH 370 and MH17 were probably also some sort of plot by the US.

We imagine it is going to be too much for many people to get their head around.  And that’s fine: not everyone is ready for this kind of information yet, and that’s okay.  All we ask is that when you are ready to expand your consciousness, come back to this page with an open mind – just don’t dismiss the valuable information on all our other pages just because this page doesn’t sit right with you – yet.

Now, I want to be very clear here.  This website is linked to by the GAP, and the site itself links back to the GAP and endorses Rod Culleton.  If Rod Culleton does not hold these views himself, he is certainly happy to associate with people to do.  And these views are both wrong and dangerous (and incredibly hurtful to those who lost loved ones in these events).

But even setting aside that, the GAP seem to be extreme libertarians who do not want to contribute to the wellbeing of others in this Commonwealth that they claim to feel so strongly about (I mean, I don’t adore paying tax, but I do love the fact that it means we have nice roads and public health and education things like that.  And I don’t think it should be restricted only to those who feel like paying it).

Competition for the bottom of my ballot paper is getting quite high, but I have to say, the Port Arthur conspiracy stuff is certainly a way to shoulder yourself to the front of the pack.  And once again, I find myself saying, look, if you are too extreme for Pauline Hanson and One Nation, then there is something very, very wrong here.

Eurovision Theme Song as determined by me, very objectively

I mean, what do you even do with a party like this?  I actually asked my fellow Eurovision fans for suggestions of songs that were utterly ludicrous and ideally pointless, and a Belgian friend came back with this one from 1983.

It has one line, in Flemish, repeated endlessly, which doesn’t really translate well to anything, but my friend reckoned the closest translation was ‘Enough is enough and my head is closed’.

Which… seems about right for this lot.  Oy.

8 thoughts on “Federal Election 2019: Meet The Great Australian Party

  1. Pingback: The Great Australian Party (GAP) – FREEMAN DELUSION: The Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument in Australia

  2. You’re quick to push your opinions as a truth here. The reason why all of this sounds ‘unintelligible’ to you, is because you are very uneducated on it all. You keep referencing ‘the Queen’ as if she is a nobody to us, then you keep making these claims that it sounds like ‘sovereign citizens’. This is your issue, you have not read the constitution have you? Australia is. Federal commonwealth that makes us a dominion under the UK, and the monarch is the sovereign, which means the Queen is the sovereign of Australia, the crown. For us to no longer be apart of this dominion, or aka the ‘Commonwealth’ we need to have a referendum. One was held in 1999, we said no. So, why are you saying the Queen is a nobody? Oh, that’s right, you have done lazy research and tried to make out that you are knowledgeable on the subject. Take this pathetic ‘review’ down and try redeem some public face.

  3. Pingback: Wayne Glew, Rod Culleton, GAP, and the Privy Council – FREEMAN DELUSION: The Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument in Australia

  4. Hi there, thanks for posting this! Just wanted to know where that link was between the GAP page and the Know Your Rights nonsense that they apparently link to? Has it been taken down do you think? I can’t find it… thanks!

  5. “Mike” It appears it is you that has not done any research, or read the constitution, as you disregard section 76, which grants the High Court “original jurisdiction” in all matters relating to its interpretation. It is therefore irrelevant how you interpret the various provisions, but how the High Court does. And I might add these interpretations, even when it is “carefully considered dicta” are binding on all the courts in Australia (see Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2010) 230 CLR 89, at 134, Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395 at 403) “Where a ratio decidendi exists in the reasoning of one of its decisions, it is not permissible for any other Australian court, whether in an appeal or at trial, to ignore, doubt or qualify the rule so stated. The rule may be analysed and, where thought appropriate, elaborations suggested or distinctions upheld. But the legal duty of obedience requires that it must be followed and applied.”

    Getting to the crux of your comment Mike, you might not be aware that at the time of Federation, Andrew Inglis Clark, Charles F. Maxwell and Harrison Moore had pointed out that the Constitution placed all the prerogative powers of the Crown, (other than the power to appoint the Governor-General), in the hands of the Governor-General, and that he exercised these constitutional powers in his own right, and not as a representative or surrogate of the Sovereign.

    Secondly, you might not be aware of the principle of responsible government. Under the principle of Responsible Government, the Executive and Judiciary are responsible to, and answerable to, the Legislative branch. See R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254 at 275; McGinty (1996) 186 CLR 140 at 269; Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 (Mason C.J. at 30; Dawson J. at 20; McHugh J. at 15) The Engineers’ Case (1920) 28 CLR, per Knox C.J., Isaacs, Rich and Starke JJ. at p 147): “The principle of responsible government – the system of government by which the executive is responsible to the legislature – is not merely an assumption upon which the actual provisions are based; it is an integral element in the Constitution.” The Commonwealth v. Kreglinger and Fernau Ltd. and Bardsley (1926) 37 CLR 393, (Isaacs J.) at p 413: “It is part of the fabric on which the written words of the Constitution are superimposed.”

    Thirdly, you might not be aware that the Crown is a body politic, a corporate sole, according to Oxford Australian Law Dictionary 2010 Edition, an “abstract metonymic concept” that “represents the legal embodiment of the executive government”. Whatever allegiance is owed is to the body politic, not to the Queen in a personal sense. In Re Stepney Election Petition; Isaacson v Durant (1886) 17 QBD 54, Lord Coleridge CJ stated at 65-66 “…as the statutes referred to the Crown and not the sovereign, allegiance was due to the King in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity.” This ratio was upheld by the High Court in Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43, at 165: “These duties or obligations, whatever their content, are said to be due to the Crown in the “politic” not the “personal capacity” of the sovereign.” Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30 has a complete definition of the usage of the Crown in constitutional theory, from 84. “The writings of constitutional lawyers at the time show that it was well understood in 1900, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, that the term “the Crown” was used in several metaphorical senses. “We all know”, Lord Penzance had said in 1876, “that the Crown is an abstraction”, and Maitland, Harrison Moore, Inglis Clark and Pitt Cobbett, amongst many distinguished constitutional lawyers, took up the point.”

    Fourthly, it appears your main issue of contention is the principle commonly known as the divisibility of the Crown, which Justice Gaudron found to be “implicit in the Constitution.” in Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30. As stated in Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43, from 57: “While the Crown remained indivisible, a British subject was outside the denotation of the term “alien”. However, when the Crown divided, so to speak, the denotation of the term “subject of the Queen” changed. As a result, British subjects no longer owed permanent allegiance to the Queen of Australia and became “aliens” in Australia… The meaning of “aliens” in the Constitution does not turn on whether under the law of another country the person in question owes a duty of allegiance to that country. It turns on whether that person owes a duty of permanent allegiance to the Queen of Australia.” and at : “The change in the application of the term is the result of a number of significant developments since federation. They include: (a) the gradual emergence of Australia as an independent, sovereign nation (which arguably culminated with the passage of the Australia Acts 1986 (Cth) and (UK)); (b) the acceptance of the divisibility of the Crown (implicit in the development of the Commonwealth as an association of independent nations); (c) the creation of a distinct Australian citizenship commencing in 1948 with the passage of the Nationality and Citizenship Act and the British Nationality Act 1948 (UK); and (d) the acceptance by this Court that the phrase “subject of the Queen” in the Constitution no longer means “subject of the Queen of the United Kingdom” but “subject of the Queen of Australia”.”

    Fifthly, it is not only the High Court of Australia that has upheld the divisibility of the Crown, but practically all nations that were once dominions of the former British Empire, including the British High Court. It was upheld in relation to the Queen of Canada in R v. Foreign Secretary ex parte Indian Association of Alberta [1982] 1 QB 892, a ratio that was upheld in relation to the Queen of Australia in Fitzgibbon v HM Attorney General [2005] EWHC 114 (Ch).

    Sixthly, as recently stated in Petrie; Trustee of the property of Aitken (Bankrupt) v Aitken & Ors [2019] FCCA 16: “…these or similar submissions, in relation to both State and Commonwealth Acts, using the same grounds or variants thereof have been made in a large number of cases and characterised over a period of almost 17 years as having no basis in law by Commonwealth courts: Joosse & Anor v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [1998] HCA 77; (1998) 159 ALR 260; Helljay Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 56; McKewin’s Hairdressing and Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] HCA 27; (2000) 171 ALR 335; and State courts: Hedley v Spivey [2011] WASC 325 [19]; Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General & Anor [2006] WASCA 231; Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260 (special leave refused: Glew v Shire of Greenough [2007] HCATrans 520); Glew Technologies Pty Ltd v Department of Planning and Infrastructure [2007] WASCA 289; Glew v City of Greater Geraldton [2012] WASCA 94; Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 93; Krysiak v Hodgson [2009] WASCA 114; Glew v The Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASC 14; Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87; O’Connell v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 96 [92]; Hedley v Spivey [2012] WASCA 116; Bell v Cribb [2012] WASCA 234; and also by courts in other jurisdictions: Meads v Meads [2012] ABQB 571.”

    In relation to both the Queen of Australia premise and the validity of the Australia Acts 1986, I suggest you read a more recent decision in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Haughton [2020] SASC 135, which cited all the relevant High Court decisions which are binding on that court in this ratio.

    Finally, I leave you with this passage from Re Patterson [2001] HCA 51; 207 CLR 391, from 226: “The notion that an individual became a British subject at birth anywhere within the dominions of the Imperial Crown and by reason of allegiance to the Imperial Crown, had been abandoned both in the United Kingdom and in Australia before the birth of the prosecutor. The post-war legislation in both countries, the 1948 UK Act and the Citizenship Act, recognised that the metaphysical indivisibility of the Imperial Crown no longer made constitutional or political sense. Notions of allegiance as the factum upon which nationality laws and status turned were accommodated to international realities consequent upon the disappearance of the British Empire. Those realities were reflected in the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 (Cth). This recited an agreement reached at a meeting of British Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London in December 1952 that “the Style and Titles at present appertaining to the Crown are not in accord with current constitutional relationships within the British Commonwealth”. It may be accepted that, at the time of federation, the state of subjection identified in s 117 was to the indivisible Imperial Crown. But, as a result of the changes made in the constitutional relationships within the British Commonwealth which were reflected in the various statutory provisions that were made between 1948 and 1953 and are mentioned earlier, the allegiance owed by the subjects spoken of in s 117 was to the Crown in its Australian politic capacity. There no longer was in constitutional theory or political reality the Imperial Crown of earlier days. To continue to read s 117 as it had been read initially would have been to deprive it of any useful operation.”

    Best regards, Rob Sudy, author of Freeman Delusion – The Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument in Australia.

    https://thefreemandelusion.wordpress.com/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.