EXCLUSIVE: NSW Liberal Presidential Candidate Reveals Revolutionary “Smash The Factions” Reform Plan

Jamie photo JR colour John Ruddick, a candidate for the Presidency of the NSW Liberal Party, argues for a revolution in the operations of the Liberal Party: 

Firstly can I say, obviously we are lucky to have someone of the stature of Arthur Sinodinos to nominate for President.  I have many friends that know Arthur well and they all tell me he is a great guy.  Arthur was particularly gracious to me in person this morning which I appreciate.

However I am nominating for President because it wouldn’t matter if we had Julius Caesar as President. The problem is not the personality of the leadership - the problem is the archaic structure of our party.  Our party is based on a 19th century model which concentrates power.  We need a democratic party for the 21st century. 

I have a message for all the factional hotshots in this room – your days of influence in the NSW Liberal Party are numbered.  So if you want to dedicate your life to stacking out a SEB or sneaking new members into a Special Branch – take it from me, no need to bother.

As of today I am the spokesperson for the biggest faction of all within the NSW Liberal Party – the 95% of members who faithfully renew their membership each year and don’t get a say on anything other than their branch president and treasurer.  Once every two decades there is a 10% chance they will get a say on a preselection.  And I speak for the 50,000 people across NSW who would gladly join the party if our party was structured around the Five Point Plan. 

It is absolutely inevitable that the Five Point Plan will win eventually.  Now why I am I so confident?  Because I will be unrelenting.  13 years ago Tony Abbott said this:

‘For me John Ruddick evokes the spirit of George Washington – not just because of his willingness to stand up for a principle and fight for a good cause but because of his rigorous honesty.

Why did Tony say these words?  Well that was in the middle of the most significant reform this State Council has approved in the past two decades – the removal of Young Liberal ‘double dipping.’  ‘Double dipping’ effectively gave Young Liberals twice the say in our party as everyone else.  I could see this was wrong and that it needed to go. 

The then all supreme ruling ‘Group’ faction loved double dipping because it kept them in power.  So I said to the other faction ‘hey, why don’t we campaign to get rid of double dipping?’  Half of that faction said ‘no – double dipping is good’ and the other half just dithered and said ‘we need to think about it.’ 

So John Ruddick, all on his own, without permission from anyone, started writing open letters to State Council explaining (a) what double dipping was (b) why it was wrong and (c) how we can get rid of it.

For two years the Group faction did all they could to prevent the removal of double dipping – but I persisted and others came on board (most notably Tony Abbott for which I will always be grateful) and when this State Council was finally allowed to vote on it they overwhelmingly threw double dipping out.  That was the moment the Group’s power began to crumble. 

I’ve done it before and ladies and gentlemen, I promise you, I am going to do it again.  The Five Point Plan is a continuation of the same democratic spirit that removed double dipping.   The Five Point Plan is the end of factions.

So lets go through the Five Points.

  1. Plebiscites for lower house seats.  You simply cant stack a plebiscite – and if we remove the motive to branch stack there will be so manypositives.  If you don’t believe me, you will believe John Howard who said ‘Some Liberal Party factions are nothing more than preselection cooperatives.  The Liberal Party should fully embrace the branch plebiscite system for candidate selection.” 
  2. State-wide plebiscites for our Senate and MLC candidates.   These statewide contests will be exciting, produce outstanding candidates and vitalise the membership.
  3. State Executive voted by the party membership.  The State Executive is meant to be the guardians of the Liberal Party but increasingly we have State Exec members who are beholden to factions.  We all know this is wrong. 
  4. Merger with the Nationals.  The LNP merger in Queensland has been an outstanding success.  The LNP is a division of the Liberal Party of Australia which makes NSW the last bastion of the Nationals.  Outside NSW Nationals have only three members in the House of Respensentatives.  
  5. Parliamentary leaders elected by the party membership.  If it is good enough for the US and UK to have their candidates for President and Prime Minister chosen by the party membership then why not us?  There are too many agendas in the partyroom while the broad membership just wants the Liberal Party to win.  This reform will attract 50,000 new members and with all those membership fees we could actually buy our own office space. 

The Five Point Plan is a just cause.  I will run for President this year, next year and as long as it takes to get up these reforms up which 95% of the party membership supports.  Thank you. 

Why Labor has failed on border protection.

Photo on 2011-06-23 at 10.47

Thomas Murphy discusses Labor's record on border protection: 

In 2001/2002, both major parties accepted that Australia did have a problem with boat people and people smugglers, so together, John Howard and Immigration Minister at the time, Phillip Ruddock put in place the very successful Pacific Solution. At the time, the Pacific Solution had bi-partisan support.
I say that the Pacific Solution was "very successful" since it arrivals dropped from 5516 in 2001, to zero in 2002. Successful to you, or not?

"ANOTHER boat on the way, another policy failure” is how Prime Minister Julia Gillard characterized the flow of people smugglers’ vessels when she was in Opposition on April 23, 2003.

In 2007, Kevin Rudd ditched the Pacific Solution for an open border "policy" that has failed drastically.

In the recent flawed Gillard/Swan Federal Budget, the immigration department has blown out by $1.75b because of Labor's incompetence to secure our borders. This $1.75b includes an increase of 1000% of Immigration staff and the opening/expanding of detention centers.

If people see Labor as the party of "friendliness" towards boat people, they need to think again. If Labor didn't ditch the Pacific Solution, 203+ boat people would not have died, boat people would not be burning down detention centers and going on hunger strikes and finally, they would be treated with respect.

Labor's latest border protection mess up has been seen with Malaysia. Gillard/Rudd did not call the President of Nauru because Nauru is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention, well Julia, neither is Malaysia. If you check Malaysia's humanitarian record, it's simply horrific that they are going to be sending asylum seekers over there where the Police still use the cane. Not only is there a humanitarian problem with this arrangement, there's also a massive cost involved. This arrangement with Malaysia will cost us $292m, that is, $54,000 per refugee we get and $90,000 per boat person we send there. This arrangement with Malaysia will not stop the boats, this has been shown since Gillard/Bowen introduced this new plan more boats have arrived.

Under Howard's Pacific Solution, boat people were subject to Australian law in Nauru, Manus etc and were not subject to daily beatings and being locked up in a cell. This is a lously deal for Australia and will damage Australia's reputation on the humane treatment of refugees.

What does work are TPVs, Nauru and the ability to turn boats around when possible. The point of a "boat people policy" is not to stop refugees from coming to Australia, but to deny the murderous people smugglers a product to sell. Labor has failed on this premise.

If Gillard was serious about "stopping the boats" she will bring back Howard's Pacific Solution which has been proven to work and has been proven to stop the people smugglers a product to sell. Unlike Labor, the Coalition has a strong and humane record for the detention and the treatment of refugees/boat people, and will continue to do so.

I pose you the question, how can we trust a Government that cannot control our borders?

Thomas Murphy is a 16 year old young Liberal member that has a passion for Politics, and is also an AFL Umpire. 

BROWN OFF: The nation straps itself in for the Greens party’s “joy ride of the future”

Never mind Lee Rhiannon as the symbol of crazed malevolence in Australian politics, Greens Leader Bob Brown’s extraordinary oration at the National Press Club will be very hard for the vast majority of Australians to swallow.

It was a horrifying insight into how his extreme-left, wacky Greens political party will exercise its balance-of-power in the Commonwealth house of review, the Senate.

In his remarks, Brown confirmed that he will side with Labor to ensure even if Abbott is elected PM with a mandate to rescind the carbon tax and scrap any carbon emissions trading system prior to its commencement that the new PM would not be able to pass his agenda.

That’s not an exercise of balance-of-power in any way that has been previously understood in Australian politics. It’s not a balance Brown seeks to exercise, it’s a veto. It’s radically different from how the unlamented and extinct Australian Democrats did business.

And while their position on carbon is clear enough, they’re willing to risk our export and manufacturing capacity in pursuit of warm-inner-glow doom-politics, on other matters they are inconsistent and incoherent.

Their comedienne economics adviser has prepared a xenophobic and hysterical document calculating that 80%+ of mining operations are somehow – shock, horror – owned by foreigners. Of course that entirely depends on how you define foreign.

And yet despite playing the race card on the economy in the style of Pauline Hanson, Brown has publicly called for the creation of a One World Government, with one vote, one value. A global parliament, possibly based here in Australia, that would operate by consensus. Yes, really.

Leaving aside the merits – or otherwise – of letting the world’s biggest and often least democratic countries make decisions over us, it’s the inconsistency and lack of coherence in Brown’s statements that is the most jarring aspect. He’s against foreign investment in mining infrastructure in Australia but in favour of foreigners deciding what our laws would be.

He can say these bizarre and bizarrely inconsistent things – or at least think he can get away with it – because previously it’s not mattered. But now it does.

They are all over the place. They loudly and repeatedly attacked Labor and the Liberals for taking campaign contributions from the wealthy and powerful yet they then took – in secret – the largest political donation in recorded Australian history, $1.6 million from a bloke who got rich expanding the world’s carbon footprint, Graeme Wood, the founder of wotif which flogs cheap airfares, car rentals, sea cruises and hotels to last-minute travellers. Despite making his fortune online he’s against the NBN.

via www.vexnews.com

Hit the link to read the rest…

United Nations’ New Arms Watchdog: North Korea (No, really…)

This is what makes people dismiss the United Nations as a geopolitical joke. Take the most bellicose, militarized, scofflaw nation on earth. Now make it the head of a disarmament council.

The presidency of U.N.’s Conference on Disarmament is now held by North Korea. Its representative on the body, So Se Pyong, announced that he “welcomed any sort of constructive proposals that strengthened the work and credibility of the body.” Except, clearly, for the obvious suggestion that North Korea resign so as to avoid making the entity a laughing stock.

via www.wired.com

I Just Can’t Wait to be King


Be under no illusion about who is really running this Government.


The Elite first fought in the name of Religion, then Communism, then Terrorism and now in the name of Climate Change. Their excuses for global domination always change but their aim remains the same – Domination.

Special thanks to Wakeup2theLies for the video. If you like, you can follow him on twitter @wakeup2thelies

Andy Semple

Follow him on twitter @Bulmkt

More Grossly Offensive Sexist Attacks On Australian Conservative Women

Most of our readers would be aware that Menzies House has a (rather vile) hatepage on Facebook, where a group of sad, pathetic individuals spend their days doing little more than spreading lies about the work we do.

I have tended to ignore this page, as giving such (defamatory) losers attention gives them far more credibility than they deserve, and I find it rather funny really. So I'm more than happy to let their numerous untruths about me go by without comment.

However, I could not let their latest piece of sexist, dispicable conduct slide by. I know, wise heads will tell me I probably shouldn't respond, as they'll now all feel validated and that their lives have some sort of meaning as I'm acknowledging them, but I'm so infuriated upon reading it that I just cannot resist. And I'm just seething with anger at this being the latest in a long string of attacks on conservative women for their appearance. 

See, what happened is that, having stalked Facebook for our supporters and contributors, the Admin of our left-wing hate page decided to post a photo of one of our contributors, and the SGCT authoriser, and proceed to engage in the most grossly offensive sexist attacks imaginable: 

Untitled4I think this says all you need to know about those who hate us and the "tolerant" left. The fact that as they can't come up with any coherent argument, they have decided that attacking the appearance of conservative women is the way to go. 

This makes me sick.  

Because of course if you're a conservative woman who's attractive it just must mean you "don't have a brain cell" and that you're a "tart". This is how the left think. Nevermind that Natalie (the girl in question) got elected by her peers as the  Vice-President of the University of Queensland Student Union. That she got into law-psych, a very competative field. That she has a brilliant record of political organisation. She's a conservative woman so she's apparently fair game for attack as "dumb". Mmmhmm… 

And I must add, not only were these blatantly sexist offensive remarks not removed, but they were actually endorsed by the administrators of the page – who then went even further with the sexism to add that her photo made her seem "bitchy".

The left claim to support women's rights… they trumpet it all the time … yet when a conservative woman is successful, their ugly side really comes out.

It makes me sick.


PS: Btw, Chris Johnson AKA Signed in, is one of the Admins of that page. I'm not saying he made or endorsed that comment, he is an Admin, and it is still there…  make of that what you will.. 

Is there a Legislator in the house?


Steven Ciobo MP argues that instead of an ever-encroaching nanny state, we all chant a collective 'harden up':

No-one can really pinpoint where it all began; the slide by all tiers of government to legislating our way to a safer, cleaner, friendly, less exploitive world. Well, at least that is the rationalisation.

The nanny state is alive and well in Australia. In fact, it is flourishing. If it were a plant it would be one of the strangler vines – a weed that thrives by spreading over the trunk and branches of other plants. Eventually it strangles its 'host', the vine constricting any trunk or branch growth.

Like the strangler vine, Australia is rapidly becoming a land of rules, regulations and laws that choke our creativity and innovative spirit as tier upon tier of Government pass more laws and more regulations.

It seems now we've evolved from figurative cries of 'is there a doctor in the house?', past 'is there a lawyer in the house?', to arrive at 'is there a legislator in the house?'.

Any claims of harm are immediately responded to with calls to introduce a law to ban or regulate the activity.

Let's be honest, it is a political no-brainer that if someone or a group claims they have suffered as a consequence of some activity (or inactivity!) then it is far better to sympathise and promise political action; rather than ask hard questions like 'is there something you, the apparent victim, could have done to protect yourself?'.

Modern Australia simply no longer believes in the principle of caveat emptor.

Like the Tassie Tiger, personal responsibility has died out.

If you:

Drink too much – why weren't the staff at the licensed venue complying with the responsible service of alcohol policy?

Lose money on an investment – must be the banks/financial planners/real estate agents fault.

Dive into a sand bar at the beach – the local Council should have warned you of the risk.

Hurt yourself at work – your employer obviously just does not care or you were not warned.

Buy a franchise that fails – clearly the franchisor misled you.

Unfortunately I have been present all too often as law after law passes through the Parliament to 'fix' some problem that has been identified as needing urgent reform.

Mea culpa is all I can say. Indeed, this article is a chance for me to restate my commitment to smaller government. I will attempt to persuasively argue the need for less regulation and hope I can persuade more of my colleagues, on all sides of the House, to commit to it too.

Increasingly, I find myself thinking it is not this new law that is required, rather, it is a good dose of 'toughen up and stop blaming others for your bad decision'. Some straight talking along the lines of the lecture you would get from Dad or Mum when you did something stupid.

We have developed a national pattern of behaviour that is now entirely predictable. Someone complains they are an innocent victim, the media undertake some kind of expose, politicians race around tut-tutting and demanding action, and we pass yet another law or regulation on the premise of making sure it can never happen again.

It is exceedingly difficult to know when exactly it all went too far. Each new rule is certainly well intentioned.

What's more, the 'victim' is always grateful and those stakeholders who might complain about the new red tape and compliance costs are routinely dismissed as being too concerned about their own circumstance and defending the status quo.

Now we have arrived at a point where we are an international laughing stock. Australia is up there with the worst global offenders for bureaucracy and red tape.

More concerning though, in the contest for capital, in the contest for investment and ingenuity, Australia is choking off innovation and creativity because we can not make it fit our framework of rules.

As armies of local, state and federal government bureaucrats march forward to enforce all these rules and regulations, our innovators and risk takers run in the opposite direction for the less regulated and simply more straightforward countries in which to deal.

How about we chant a collective 'harden up' next time some group claims more regulation is the answer to their poor choices?

Steven Ciobo is the Federal Member for Moncrief. Originally published at The Drum and reproduced with permission. 

Phelps Speaks, Government Acts


The Hon. Dr. Peter Phelps MLC rejoyces that close to 10% of NSW Legislation has been abolished by the new government: 

In my maiden speech, I made the following points:

"How many Acts of Parliament are there? If we think about it there might be 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 or 600. As at December 2010 there were 1,089 separate Acts of Parliament, 300 of which are just useless. However vital they may have been in 1930 I am not sure anyone, not even Mr Barilaro in the Legislative Assembly, thinks we really need a Bungendore to Captains Flat Railway Act. Do we really need a Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Act? What about the Sydney Female School of Industry (Dissolution) Act 1926? Who knows? Perhaps we need these vital instruments. But it strikes me that there are a large number of Acts, especially archaic private Acts, which could be culled from the statute books with no apparent loss to our rights and freedoms." 

"Similarly, there appear to be about another 400 Acts that could be usefully consolidated. Should employers be required to deal with nine different Acts on workers compensation? Are farmers happy about having 13 different Acts involving National Parks and Wildlife? Does it help the Department of Community Services to have 15 different Acts relating directly to children's welfare, or the police with 18 different Acts relating to crime and criminals? All the various universities and colleges Acts could be amalgamated into one. How about this for a title—the Universities and Colleges Act? It is my fervent wish that this Government will get rid of as much unnecessary law and regulation as it can during the next four years. We should set ourselves a target for the repeal of laws and regulations, and we should meet them."

Guess what?  Somebody was listening. 

In the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2011, the O'Farrell Government has just executed 96 – yes, NINETY SIX – separate Acts of Parliament in the State of NSW.

Gone, goodbye, good riddance, out of the ballpark, see-ya!

The thing about it is this: they kept this so quiet.  I didn't even know about the extent of the cull until a staffer from the AG's Office told me!  We should be cheering from the rooftops.  And instead we are hiding our light under a bushell.  Such is the state of political debate in Australia, where 'more laws' mean you 'care' and 'less government interference' means you're a 'heartless beast'. 

Now, are we a libertarian utopia?  No, of course not.  But a hearty two-and-a-half cheers for a government which has, in its first 100 days, just eliminated 9% of the total legislative enactments which were in place in NSW at the start of December 2010.

And I'd like to think that maybe it was something I said in passing…

Peter Phelps is the Government Whip in the New South Wales Legislative Council, and is a former long-term staffer in the Howard Government. He has a PhD in Australian History.  

Book Review: The Forgotten People


Charles Everist reviews the newly-republished The Forgotten People,  first published in 1943, that brought together the a series of Menzies' radio broadcasts:

The Victorian Division of the Liberal Party now sheds light on our forgotten Prime Minister and the forgotten people he stood up for.

Sir Robert Menzies famously spoke about the ‘forgotten people’ of Australia. Who would have believed the towering figure over twentieth century Australian politics, would himself be far from today’s minds.

After reading through this latest work, I felt immediately compelled to share the importance and current relevance of Menzies’ most famous composition. The relevance today is exemplified by Tony Abbott revisiting the spirit of The Forgotten People in the face of economic planning, a philosophical opposition to liberal and conservative thought, as too the social hindrances young and old continue to face.

The Forgotten People and Other Studies in Democracy, first published in 1943 brought together the series of weekly radio broadcasts that Menzies delivered set against the backdrop of an Australia at war in 1942. The broadcasts explored the principles upon which a post-war Australia needed to be constructed and are today seen as the foremost statements of Australian liberal philosophy. Whilst many of his speeches focussed upon the demands faced by his country in the face of a global conflict, many of the subjects Menzies elucidated still are relevant to a modern society. Freedom of speech, worship, fear, problems of censorship, alcohol, the function of the opposition and government, education, the law and the importance of cheerfulness, all are issues that have carried forward to this day and into the future.

The problems that alcohol brought in the 1940s have morphed into a frightful and repulsive use of drugs amongst my own cohort, who have a falsified belief that they have no where better to spend their money. The pressures faced by university students, faced with expensive and protracted costs were something that Menzies long did seek to abolish and would no doubt be horrified to see happening years after his administration. Moreover, we are constantly more and more aware of the grief and exhaustion that depression begets our families, something that Menzies warned long before Patrick McGaury.

The republished issue of Menzies’ works, launched at the Victorian Liberal State Council and available through the party, features an introductory essay written by David Kemp and a forward given by Sir Robert’s daughter, Heather Henderson. Together they highlight the insignificance of uninformed criticisms of Menzies as well as the reformulation for present generations of “what the Liberal Party stands for and why”. Kemp remarks that the time has come “to assert the positive case for Menzies’ achievements against the continuing efforts of his philosophical opponents to diminish him”. The essay delves into Menzies’ leadership during the war as Prime Minister and whilst in opposition, the forces behind his resignation, his ideologies as opposed to Alfred Deakin’s and the establishment a new party to “revive liberal thought”.

Interdispersed amongst the pages is a collection of photos of Menzies throughout his public life and many more belonging to the Menzies family private collection. Images of his meetings with powerful leaders such as Churchill and JFK are interestingly contrasted against the gentle portraits of himself and Australia’s children as well as his own children and grandchildren. The most poignant image of the lot would have to be that of Sir Robert with two Aboriginal children at Weipa in 1958. Sitting down, the children are resting on his lap, his face gentle and caring, and his arms hugging their sides. Yet both children have an overwhelming fear stretched across their face, not of Sir Robert, but of something much deeper. Whilst he did not mention the plight of Aborigines specifically in his broadcasts, this photo serves an important reminder of his compassion to the most forgotten of all Australians.

The republishing of Menzies’ philosophical constitution has certainly instilled in me a passion for liberal designs and ideas. Menzies shows that the liberal approach was not only the best means to put right the violent struggles of his day, but those which carry through the Australian generations. This book is a must for all liberals, not just to glance over, but to digest, grasp and take Menzies’ philosophy once again to the Australian people.

Charles is a first year politics student at Melbourne University, a member of the Melbourne University Liberal Club and the Victorian Young Liberals.