UPDATE –
OCTOBER 2005 PART THREE
NATIONALS BACK-STAB THEIR RURAL AND REGIONAL
CONSTITUENTS ON TELSTRA SELL-OUT
The “Nationals,” the Junior Liberals, led by trade
minister Mark Vaile and their
Both Senator Barnaby Joyce and NSW Senator Fiona Nash
were notified that regardless of who buys Telstra they will challenge the
Howard Government’s regulated Telecommunications legislation in the Federal
Court under the Trade Practices Act re; “Restriction of Trade.” When the Howard – Vaile – Liberal – National
Coalition sell Telstra and the Rural and Regional Services begin to collapse we
will not only name the National and Liberal Party members who supported the
sale we will also name their Bureaucrats.
We have no doubt that the sale of Telstra will lead to
much higher rental fees, timed phone calls and the consumer will be liable for
the repair of faulty equipment. If you
were fighting a war and you had Mark Vaile and Barnaby Joyce fighting along
side you in the tranches one would find it difficult to decipher who was the
biggest enemy, those in front of you or the ones beside you.
THE REAL FACTS
ABOUT THE
Question 1-Why does the Federal Government insist on
selling its 51% share of an Australian asset that currently makes $10 Million
profit per day?
Answer-They need the money urgently!
Question 2-What for?
Answer=They have an unfunded $90 Billion
superannuation payout to make to themselves.
Question 3-Why Unfunded?
Answer-The Government have fully indexed their own
pensions to be inflation proof. This
money has devalued so rapidly over the years that any contributions they made
are valueless, however the “Golden Handshakes” are so huge that their
contributions (including interest) would not amount to much value at
retirement.
Question 4-Where were they getting the money prior to
the first sale of Telstra?
Answer-The ALP put a referendum question to all
Australians asking whether we would accept 7.5% tax levy to fill a trust fund
that would pay all Australians a liveable aged pensions. They calculated the approximate family growth
rate for the future, the people voted Yes, the levy was introduced and every
tax payer pays and still pays as part of our general Tax.
Question 5-This referendum is binding on Government by
law and can only be rescinded by voter referendum. So where did this money go?
Answer-The Liberal took the contents of the age
pension trust fund and transferred it to consolidated revenue, and the ALP
secretly removed the legislation.
Question 6-What Happened to Age Pensions?
Answer-Many were means tested into becoming self
funded retirees, Women’s age to qualify for pension was increased thus reducing
the eligibility.
Question 7-Will the Sale of the remainder of Telstra
provide the funds to Eliminate the Government burdening debt as the Prime
Minister has stated.
Answer-No, if the anticipated sale price is approx $35
billion and Government current debt is over $480 billion and rising with each
consecutive month trade debts.
Question 8-Who will buy Telstra?
Answer-The Foreign Financiers who have the funds and
want this lucrative markets as part of their Global strategy, the Federal
Government will not allow Australians to by all the shares.
Question 9-Why Not?
Answer-The major parties have agreed to Globalisation,
Free Trade, and Open Borders through United Nations Treaties.
Question 10-So what will happen with an ageing
population, if the Government is unable to fund Age Pensions?
Answer-The Government has put into place a scheme
where you must sell your home to the Banks (most which are foreign owned) as
their financiers. This means that in
time these financiers will own all property and related assets not belonging to
Fully funded, fully Inflationed indexed pensioners, Politicians and Senior
Public Servants.
Question 11-Is this what you want?
Answer-If your answer is NO – “Then what can you do
about it” Firstly remember this great country is still a democratic society,
and Governments are voted into power by the People for the People. Now talk to
your friends and workmates, show them this article, network this information,
use the power of the Internet, Australians need to be informed about the truth,
and demand answers from our Local Federal MP. These Senior Politicians are
controlling our future and must be held accountable for the lies and corruption
that exists in many areas of Government – both State , Federal and local. (
council and shires ) Furthermore I promise you that together with my learned
colleagues, we will continue to expose any politician or Government Bureaucrats
that attempt to undermine the future and well being of
Voice of the People Lobby Group
GOOD
ECONOMIC MANAGERS
Since the Howard Coalition came to power they have
more than Trebled Our National Debt which is one third of the
United States National Debt, although our population is only one eighth of
theirs. When you consider the Howard
Government has sold our Airports including
I hope no one’s forgotten that Treasurer Costello lost
5 billion dollars of Australian Taxpayers money, gambling on the Foreign
Currency Exchange Markets.
It must also be noted Australian Democrats Senator
Natasha Stott Despoja’s husband Ian Smith was a major player in his company’s
Gavin Anderson Consultant’s shepherding the Telstra legislation through
Parliament.
The failure of Peter Corish, President of the National
Farmers Federation (NFF) and his members failure to oppose the sale of Telstra
will be continually highlighted on our website.
To dispel
misinformation currently promoted by party politicians and their spin-doctors,
the following synopsis is fact:
1939 to 1945 World
war 2.
1942 to 1943 As
a wartime measure, the Federal Government gained sole control over Australian
Income Tax.
1944 Labor Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, Introduced
3 bills to establish the National Welfare Fund, to be financed by a
compulsory contribution levy of 1 and 6 in the pound on all personal
income. Opposition Leader, Robert
Menzies, started that the compulsory contribution levy should be kept
completely separate and paid straight into a “Trust” account, and not mixed
with the general revenue. Menzies said
“The stigma of charity should be removed from the Age Pension. It should be an entitlement earned by the
person’s personal contribution to the fund”.
1946 Prime Minister Chifley agreed and
established, as from January 1, 1946
the National Welfare Fund – a “Trust” fund with the Parliament as
“Trustee.” The compulsory contributions
levy commenced on January 1 1946. It was shown separately on the personal tax
assessments for 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949
and 1950, and the compulsory levy
was properly paid straight into the special “Trust” fund, and welfare claims
were paid out of the fund. The balance
in the fund in 1950 was almost 100
million pounds.
1949 Robert Menzies became Prime Minister, and he
introduced Bills to amend the Acts governing the National Welfare Fund. The compulsory social contributions levy was
then grouped with the taxation assessment and appeared as one amount on the
taxation assessments, and was paid as one amount straight into Consolidated
Revenue. The sabotage of the National
Welfare Fund had commenced. The
Opposition Labor Party had collaborated in this sabotage by remaining silent
instead of opposing Menzies’ action.
1951 to 1985 The compulsory levy of 7.5% now included in
the tax, continued to be collected and placed in Consolidated Revenue, and
treated as general revenue and spent, until 1985.
1974 to 1975 Labor Leader Mr. Whitlam abolished income
tests for all persons 70 years of age and over, and paid pensions to all people
over that age.
1976 The newly elected Coalition Prime Minister
Malcolm Fraser cancelled the Whitlam achievement of abolishing the tests for
all who were 70 years and over.
1977 Malcolm Fraser with Treasurer Philip Lynch,
transferred the balance in the Welfare Fund account (approx. 470 million
dollars) to the Consolidated Revenue account.
1985 The Hawke-Keating Labor Government repealed
Acts Numbers 39, 40 and 41 of 1945
(the National Welfare Fund Acts). Thus
the funds finally ceased to exist. Yet
the 7.5% levy continues to be collected as a proportion of the Income Tax
Revenue. It also introduced the
much-maligned Income and Assets Test, thereby excluding millions of levy and
tax-paying Australians from receiving Social Services pensions. This money, these self-funded contributions
paid as a percentage of the total income tax collections are to-day worth more
than the amount of means-tested ENTITLEMENT due to EACH retiree today is in
excess of $500 per week.
This surely
debunks the politicians and their parties’ claims that the younger generation
are paying a proportion of their current taxes to cover the payments made to
pensioners. The obvious shortfall has
been swallowed by the Government’s taxation black hole.
The historical
summary above highlights the fact that politicians of opposing political
parties each contributed to the agenda to destroy the entitlement, as it was
intended; Why? when it clearly would not have been the will of the people. While party politicians are controlled by a
few people who are hidden from public view, yet are open to manipulation and
outright corruption, there can be no certainty of the payment of pensions. It makes me sick to the stomach that I once voted for the major political party
sho was equally responsible for THE RORTING OF OUR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, we the
Australian tax-payer, i.e. PENSIONER AND SELF FUNDED RETIREES’ PENSIONS BEING
DISHONESTLY MEANS-TESTED.
Wake up,
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE LOBBY GOUP
KEVIN WILSON: FREE TRADE COMES AT A PRICE
29/08/05
It is generally considered bad form for a guest to
lecture hosts on how they interact with friends and neighbours, particularly
when the guest has been here for a short time, and the hosts have been as
friendly and gracious as just about every Kiwi I have met since arriving in
That said, the papers and the airwaves have been
crackling since that arrival, with talk of an impending election, relations
with the
Somehow, all these things have managed to get linked
together as Kiwis head to the polls in less than three weeks. Add to that the recent visit by
Free Trade with the
Our proximity to the Americans, coupled with our long
history of being hewers of wood and drawers of water to one superpower or
another over our 138 year history, has meant the free trade debate has been one
of our country’s constants.
At no time has that been clearer than since 1989, when
The most telling lesson is that no matter how ironclad
the language, no matter how good the intentions, an agreement is a piece of
paper, subject to interpretation by both parties.
Canadians have learned that to their everlasting
dismay over the past 16 years, as successive US Administration and Congresses
have continually flouted the spirit and letters of the agreement, particularly
with respect to
Time and again, the powerful
Last week, Nafta’s Extraordinary Challenges Committee,
the agreement’s court of last resort and, ironically, an adjudication panel
insisted on by the Americans when the first Free Trade Agreement was being
negotiated, ruled again in
In the past five years, the
Lumber is by no means the only trade dispute that free
trade and NAFTA was supposed to eliminate.
Wheat, beef, milk and many other products have felt
the wrath of a Congress and Administrations eager to curry favour with powerful
While for many Canadians these ongoing trade disputes
have put the lie to the idea that you can have something approximating free
trade with a neighbour 10 times bigger than you, other provisions in these
agreements have been even more ominous, and cut to the quick of what it is to
be Canadian.
By and large,
“No matter how friendly or even-tempered the beast,”
Trudeau said, “one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”
More often than not,
Those priorities are generally determined by domestic
political considerations, and their interpretations of the free trade agreement
reflect that.
During the mid 1990’s, the Government of then-Prime
Minister Jean Chretien attempted to ban MMT, a fuel additive thought to be
toxic. Citing provisions of the
agreement, a chemicals manufacturer sued the government, which was forced to
back down.
Our public healthcare system, cherished by many
Canadians, is often perceived as being threatened by the agreement’s provision
that once goods or services are commoditised, they fall under the purview of
commerce.
There are also provisions in the free trade agreement
that guarantee American access to our energy supplies, possibly at the expense
of Canadians’ energy needs.
Nothing is wrong with seeking favourable trading
agreements with other nations, but it is also wise to consider the implications
of such an agreement, and the potential impact beyond mere trade in goods and services. Granted, new Zealanders
have the luxury of considerably more distance between themselves and the
prospective trading partner. But that
distance matters nothing when unfair tariffs are imposed on goods and services.
If to secure such an arrangement
The potential benefits are just that, benefits that
can be realised only if the bigger trading partner interprets the terms in the
same manner as the smaller partner.
Powerful and entrenched American domestic lobbies
exist in the textiles, meatpacking and agricultural sectors. It would be naïve in the extreme to think
that a free trade agreement would hold these lobbies and their push for
protectionist policies at home.
So take this little history lesson in the context it
is offered: an opportunity to learn from the experience of a close friend.
Simply ask yourself what price you are prepared to pay
for the “potential” of improved trade with the
Is it worth a piece of your soul?
*Kevin Wilson is
a Canadian Journalist who has moved to
HOWARD’S INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS LAWS TO ACCOMMADATE GATS
In late November after
President Bush was re-elected Prime Minister Howard, President Bush, Trade
Minister Mark Vaile and his American counterpart Robert ZoelicK signed off on
GATS at the WTO meeting in
GATS is an Agreement on
Trade in Services which allow American Multi-National companies to tender to
third World Nations (undeveloped countries) for one dollar an hour workers to
replace present day Australian staff.
As part of the United
States-Australian Free Trade Agreement the Howard-Vaile Coalition are obligated
to rescind the minimum wage in lieu a minimal wage, to legalise slave
labour.
Link >>>>
Update-August 2004
(An article researched by Sheldon Maher OAM – VVFA Lismore NSW) From early last century till 1997, there was a clear
understanding, a clear principle, that war veterans received free medical
treatment for their war caused illnesses and injuries. How did it come about
that the sickest of our war veterans will, next year, be slugged $97 from their
pensions to help pay for the medical treatment of these illnesses and injuries?
And that’s not the end
of it. The government has decreed that
the amount sick war veterans are out of pocket for medical treatment will
increase each year so that by 2009, these veterans will have to find $125 from
their pensions The question is; How did this come about without the ex-service
community strongly and loudly objecting? The answer is that the government has
‘crept’ changes into the pharmaceutical system.
Each change by itself has seemed too small to worry about. It’s not till you look back and add up all
the incremental changes that you realise that the changes are significant and
that we have been ‘conned’.
First, let’s look at how
governments progressively provided medical treatment for war veterans.
1914 -An Act for the
provision of war pensions was passed. The Act provided for medical treatment of war-caused disabilities as well as the payment
of war pensions.
1943 -The introduction
of the provisions of free medical or
hospital treatment for all disabilities for members in receipt of
100% or higher war pension. Along with
ex-service preference in employment and a time limit for recognition of wives
as dependants was set at 15 years for WW2 members.
1943/54- The introduction
of the National Health Act. At this time
special provisions were made to ensure that the Repatriation Pharmaceutical
Benefits Scheme was kept to guarantee free
medicine for Veterans.
1959 -The extension of free medical treatment to war widows,
children of deceased veterans.
1980-Australian mariners
who were prisoners-of-war and veterans with service related amputation or loss
of vision in one eye, who did not qualify on other grounds, were made eligible
for free medical treatment for all
conditions.
Sept 1991-Pharmaceutical
allowance to cover the cost of pharmaceutics was introduced to eligible
veterans at the rate of $2.60 per week.
This included a safety net provision.
The Government at this time gave the reason was to control the “over use” of drugs. But as
prescriptions cost $2.60 each, and were free after the 52nd
prescription, so veterans were not out of pocket.
In 1997 the rot set in
Jan 1997-The government
introduced a 50 cent surcharge on the first 52 Chemist scripts each year. This meant the sickest of our war veterans,
those needing at least one prescription a week, were out of pocket $26.00 for
the year.
Jan 2002-So by 2002, the
Pharmaceutical allowance was $2.90 a week with a Chemist script costing $3.60
each for the first 52. Our sickest
veterans were now paying a surcharge of 70 cents on the first 52 scripts so
they were out of pocket $36 for the year.
Jan 2005-By January
2005, the Pharmaceutical allowance was $2.90 a week with a Chemist script
costing $4.60 each for the first 52. Our
sickest veterans were now paying a surcharge of $1.70 cents on the first 52
scripts so as to be our of pocket $88.40 for the year
But what about the future? It seems the
government is wary of increasing the surcharge above $1.70. It may have gauged
this is about as high as we will tolerate without making a fuss. So it has changed its tactics. They have decided instead of a direct
increase in cost, to increase the number of scripts we receive before they
become free.
In other words, our
pharmaceutical allowance will to partly cover the cost of 52 scripts but the
scripts don’t become free until we have purchased more than that number.
Here’s how it will work:
1 Jan 2006-Increase from
52 to 54 scripts before scripts are free.
The sickest of our war veterans will not be out of pocket $97.60 for the
year.
1 Jan 2007-Increase from
54 to 56 scripts, Veterans now out of pocket $106.80.
1 Jan 2008-Increase from
56 to 58 scripts, Veterans now out of pocket $116.00.
1 Jan 2009-Increase from
58 to 60 scripts, Veterans now out of pocket $125.20.
Now for the really mean
bit. The Government has changed the rules of the safety net. From 1 January 2006 repeat prescriptions
within 20 days will not count towards the safety net or be free under the
safety net if you have reached it.
This measure will
inconvenience veterans in Rural and Remote areas who only have access to a
Chemist shop once every two weeks or so. They need repeat prescriptions to
ensure that they don’t run out of medications between visits.
Others need to have
their scripts filled prior to travel as many Chemist shops in smaller areas do
not stock a full range of medications.
Others may simply lose or misplace medications, mishaps which might even
be related to their war caused conditions.
So little by little, the
principle of free medical treatment for war caused illnesses and injuries has
been undermined; the pace of the ‘creep’ slow enough not to ‘scape the
horses’. But look back at what has
happened. The government has so
undermined to principle of free medical treatment that it now seems an ancient
artefact, a curiosity of the past. We
have been ‘conned’. It is well worth noting here that people in receipt of
medical treatment under Workers Compensation court orders, to not have to pay a
cent of the cost of Chemist scripts, the Insurance Company paying for them in
full. Why not war veterans?
There are several other
issues of concern that have come to our notice now regarding the operation of
the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I am pleased to advise that these issues are
currently been followed up by our National Committee to the President of the
Repatriation Commission.
Whilst we should be
angry with the government for the undermining of a just principle we should not
take it out on the poor chemist. He or
she is not responsible. If you are
angry, let your local member know.
Perhaps you could show or send him this article with a few well chosen
words.
Source: The official journal of the Totally and
Permanently Incapacitated Veterans Association of NSW Limited.
BRAINWASHED AND BRAIN DEAD AUSTRALIANS REMAIN APATHETIC
We suggest if you want
Australia to have a democracy in all 3 tiers of Government (Federal, State and
Local) – (Council and shires) you should help us to network the truth about the
major political parties by asking your family, relations, friends and their
friends to study our entire website with an open mind so we can expose the
cover-ups of the black-out media.
For more than 30 years
successive Governments both Federal and State have been white-anting
The Howard Coalition
sold Australian Airports including
Meanwhile our State
Labor and Coalition Governments have Corporatised our Water, Gas and
Electricity (power) utilities as well as privatising our roads (tolls)
The Howard Government on
Tuesday September 13, 2005 announced they would double our foreign aid to 4
billion dollars, we only hope it’s not at the expense of our war veterans
medical and Pharmaceutical Treatment.
These return servicemen
and servicewomen were the sole reason we retained English as our native
language instead of Japanese. Therefore
we as grateful Australians demand free medical and pharmaceutical treatment for
our war veterans.
On his retirement from
the Salvation Army Major Brian Watters whose honesty and integrity has never
been questioned was appointed chief drug adviser to Prime Minister John Howard,
and later appointed to the International Drug Board in
The breach of our
Federal Constitution by the then Carr Government Section 109 reads;
Inconsistency of laws, when a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the
Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of
the inconsistency, be invalid. The only
way this constitution can be amended or rescinded is by the Howard Government
calling for a people’s Referendum, which they have failed to do.
In fact Offences Against
Customs Act Section 232. Collusive Seizures. Whoever: being an Officer of
Customs or police makes any agreement not to seize goods liable to forfeiture
shall be guilty of an indicatable offence and shall be liable to imprisonment
with or with our hard labour for any term not exceeding 5 years.
The truth of the matter
is that our State and Federal Police and Australian Customs Officers failed to
uphold the aforementioned act by allowing addicts to inject illegally imported
substances such as heroin and cocaine in an illegal supervised injection room.
The Howard Government
was evidently made aware of the situation and instead of remedying the problem,
they covered it up by deleting the offending Act, Section 232 (a) Collusive
Seizures in May 2001.
In reality this did not
solve the problem. It has created the
possibility of graft and corruption by serving Police and Customs Officers in
that they can turn a blind eye to a container load of heroin and cocaine and
not be charged with an offence due to the deletion of the Act, Section 232 (a)
Collusive Seizures.
In truth the failure of
the Howard Government and their relevant Agencies to institute Federal charges
under the Australian Customs Act against the NSW State Labor Government and
their relevant Agencies is an indicatable offence under the Act by the relevant
Federal Agencies. Impingement of the
following Customs Act include; Section 33.
Except as authorised by this
Act a person shall not, move alter or interfere with goods that are subject to
the control of Customs. Penalty $50,000.
Section 231. Assembly for unlawful purposes.
(1) All persons to the
number of 2 or more assembled or the
purpose of
Preventing the Seizure
of any prohibited imports.
Through Section
236. AIDS AND ABETS.
Whoever aids, abets,
counsels or procures or by act or omission is in any way directly or indirectly
concerned in the commission of any offence against this Act shall be deemed to
have committed such offence and shall be punished accordingly. The failure of
the Howard-Vaile Coalition to uphold the Australian Constitution and
Australia’s Federal Laws, is a total insult to the tens of thousands of young
Australians who gave their blood so that we could live in a Democracy.
As for Major Brian
Watters we are waiting for his response to why he coveted our concerns and kept
them secretly to himself and away from the Australian public.
Per head per population
In that they had
factions within their organization just as our political parties have Right
Wingers, Left Wingers, Centre, left of Centre and Right of Centre. Just as the American mafia had character
assassinations we have branch stacking taking place which creates in-house
disputes.
It is worth noting that
the only occupation where qualifications are not required is an elected member
of Parliament, and yet these members are eligible for a life time pension after
serving 8 years.
As for their advisers,
the Bureaucrats, they receive a more than generous income and superannuation
scheme funded by the Australian Taxpayer although they have no hand on
experience just a diploma in Political Science.
The one diploma they haven’t got, is the one for common sense. Respect begets respect and with the exception
of Federal Independent Members Tony Windsor (
LET’S WORK AS ONE
We do not apologise for being repetitive but this appears
to be the only way to get our message across to the masses. . May
we suggest you spare a few hours to peruse our entire website and digest the
written evidence that successive Governments have been White-Anting the
Australian Public for over 30 years. “It
is time” to eradicate the Termites the Liberal-National Coalition and their
left wing supporter the Australian Democrats as well as the Labor party (ALP)
ant their left wing mates the Greens.
To succeed in defeating
the Party system we must network as a formidable team by alerting our cover-ups
in government and the opposition political parties in all 3 tiers of
Government.
Highlight how the 1 ½%
Transaction Tax will improve living standards for all Australians. Link >>>> Update August 2005. Our
biggest challenge is to get the message out to all Australians and defeat
the Multi-National black-out Media.
Remember tens of thousands of young Australians gave us the right to
Free Speech and the right to live in a Democracy.
We must search for a
person who cares about the future direction of
It’s time we kicked out
elected party members whose loyalty is 100% to the party instead of to their
Constituents. Let’s work together to
make it one