Government creates unemployment then punishes people for being unemployed

There is no doubt about it that this country is run by 'mutts', a totally dishonest bunch (broken election promises?) in the business of politics and making laws for their slave population.

Some people may even argue that the people in government have to make laws for "for the peace, order, and good government" in accordance with a document called the Australian 'Constitution' (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act), but this document does NOT even apply to those people in the Australian Government, even though there is the existence of a place called the High Court of Australia, which interprets the law according to the 'Constitution', but that is another post or dozen altogether.

The people are oppressed for being unemployed by a system that created their unemployment in the first place.

Many people may not comprehend what the Australian Government actually is, that it's a corporation conglomerate with people in the executive who have business interests in the community.

How can the laws these people implement be impartial and 'fair'?

An official (government?) source of information is from an entity called the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics), but it has been proven that on many occasions the ABS has provided false information, where at the end of the day you cannot trust the information they publish, as it may be deliberately falsified.

The ABS under the threat of extortion (an unlawful fine of $180 per day) engaged people in a non lawfully required task of filling out the 2016 census, where many posts (in accordance to law read Acts) have been posted on social media showing that no lawful requirement was ever made on the general populous to fill in the census.

The ABS also falsified housing data.

The ABS was incompetent with regards to providing online services for the census.

So, for what it's worth, according to the ABS the unemployment rate in Australia at the time of this writing is at 5.6%.

This figure is grossly inaccurate as one who has a doctor's certificate or in an educational training facility is excluded from the numbers counted.

We have seen documentation from the financial industry's analysts that show that they use a figure closer to 11%.

Some people have also claimed that there are over 1 million '457' VISA holders employed in Australia, where this can be claimed is false information, as there is a 'technicality' of other subclasses of VISA that being 485 or 444.

So it's just better to say that we have over 1 million foreign workers taking up jobs Australians need in order to survive and feed their families.

For simple mathematics purposes if Australia has 700,000 unemployed and 1,000,000 people are taking employment from Aussies, then we should theoretically have a surplus of 300,000 jobs that can be given to foreign workers after all the positions have been filled by the domestic population, but that's not what the people in government have implemented.

Therefore they want x amount of people unemployed.

As the government allegedly states it enacts the will of the people, since the people are not 'protesting' about this, the people are at enough at ease about these state of affairs.

Maybe there is too much of; the Bachelorette (poor me, can't find love, got to do it on tv), or my Kitchen Rules (I eat everything and everyone else can get stuffed), or  I'm gonna be a star (read corporate slave) one day maybe never, and footy and beer on tap to get off the couch.

The Aussie gov lost your tax dollars to spy on you?

It seems that the (hard working honest herd population's) tax dollars the government put aside for Australia's telco's has gone missing.

Do we detect fraud?

Do we detect there is no legal standing for this action?

So what would a legal response to that be?

From an article supplied:

Australia's telecommunications providers are still waiting with hands outstretched for a slice of $128.4 million needed to ensure their compliance with data retention legislation that came into effect almost a year ago.

The federal government opened applications for chunks of the $128.4 million in January this year, and closed entries on February 23.

But over five months later, not one of those applying for the cash has any government money in its pockets.

The data retention legislation, passed last August and operational from last October, requires telcos to store the non-content data, or metadata, of all their local users for two years for law enforcement purposes.

The majority of those required to comply with the scheme applied for an extension or exemption through a data retention implementation plan (DRIP), a document outlining plans for future compliance, meaning many were given an extra 18 months - until next April - to comply.

But with the clock steadily ticking down, many telcos and carriage service providers are feeling the heat knowing the compliance deadline is approaching but the funds to enable it are not yet forthcoming.

Head of industry body the Communications Alliance, John Stanton, has said telcos therefore don't know how much they will have to stump up towards the costs of the scheme.

“Many service providers – particularly smaller operators - have told us that they are doing very little or nothing to build their compliance capabilities at the moment," Stanton said in April.

“Who can blame them – if they start investing in new systems now, without knowing how much of that investment will remain unfunded once the subsidies arrive, they are putting themselves at risk of bankruptcy.”

The delay has been caused by the need to determine each applicant's funding for eligibility - a process which was only completed during the recent federal election campaign, iTnews understands. It is understood 210 applications were made for grants.

Only those with approved - or substantially approved - DRIPs are eligible for funding. Telcos are not able to review a decision on funding amount or eligibility. As as the end of April, 347 providers had applied for DRIPs, with 155 approved.

With that effort now complete, telcos are impatiently for the second last step in the process - having the Attorney-General sign off on a PwC-developed funding model for distribution of the funds.

The model determines what each applicant will get based on the size and complexity of the provider, what the applicant is requesting and how that compares to other applicants, and whether the required amount is a good use of funds, among other factors.

It is intended to ensure fairness in the distribution of the $128.4 million.

Once that signature has been received, the department will then need to cement a grant agreement with each of the individual applicants.

Only once those agreements have been signed will the money be handed out.

Successful applicants will receive half the cash upfront, and the remainder when they have been their compliance obligations.

The department did not respond to request for detail on when it expects each step of the process to occur, and when telcos are likely to receive their funding, by the time of publication.

Update: The Attorney-General's Department said the "high number of complex applications" it received to the grants program, as well as the caretaker period in the lead-up to the election, had contributed to the fuinding delay.

It declined to provide a timeline for when the money would be handed out, saying only it expected applicants would likely be advised "in the near future".

Source Supplied

Australia is run by cheats and fraudsters

The Australian people are literally governed by liars, cheats and  fraudsters.

Even if MP's break their own parliamentary rules, they 'get away with it', and still keep their job and their high paid pension.

How is that action for "peace, order, and good government" (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act)?

That is a breach of public trust, it's misconduct and most importantly fraudulent.

From what the serfs are told fraud is a criminal activity, but you won't see police file a charge sheet against Steve Herbert will you?

Is he too, like many others, above the law?

It seems that the herd populace is not really concerned that their tax dollars are supporting Steve Herbert's dogs getting a personal limo drive to a 'forgotten' house.


Can you imagine a member of the herd populace, who 'forgot' to tell 'child services' that they had 2 or 3 children to pay for out of their weekly wages?

The money would be stolen from the account the next day.

When you allegedly owe money to certain entities e.g. child services or the tax office, they illegally steal the money from your bank account.

Just another action to tell the people that they do NOT live in a democracy, nor that they are 'free' men/women on this occupied land called Australia.

We guess that there is a plethora of reality shows, beer and footy that are more important than seemingly living in slavery.

London banks are preparing for cyber attacks by stockpiling Bitcoin in case of ransom payments

London banks are reportedly stocking Bitcoin to pay off future hackers.

THE threat of debilitating attacks launched by hackers has become so concerning that financial institutions in London are reportedly stockpiling Bitcoin to pay off potential ransom demands of cyber criminals.

On Friday in the US, a number of major sites including Netflix, Spotify, Reddit and Twitter were affected by a large-scale distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack causing them to become unavailable to users.

It was just another reminder of the debilitating potential posed by co-ordinated cyber attacks — and corporations are drawing up contingency plans.

According to one UK expert, some of London’s major banks are beginning to stockpile the digital currency Bitcoin in case they need to pay off future hackers.

Dr Simon Moores is a former technology ambassador for the British government and is the chair of the annual international e-Crime Congress which is a global body that brings together IT professionals.

He said some of London’s financial institutions were coming around to the view that it was cheaper to pay the demands of cyber criminals rather than suffer the fallout from an attack.

“The police will concede that they don’t have the resources available to deal with this because of the significant growth in the number of attacks,” he told The Guardian.

“From a purely pragmatic perspective, financial institutions are now exploring the need to maintain stocks of bitcoin in the unfortunate event that they themselves become the target of a high-intensity attack, when law enforcement perhaps might not be able to assist them at the speed with which they need to put themselves back in business.”

The Bitcoin digital currency is favoured by online criminals because it can’t be traced.Source:Bloomberg

The recent DDoS attacks which drew global headlines are believed to have used a code to allow them to take control of internet-enabled devices such as security cameras and smart TVs to bombard the servers of US company called Dyn, which provides directory services to online companies.

It had nothing to do with profiteering. Most attacks of that nature are often political and are either about making a statement or simply done for kicks (or ‘lulz’ in hacker parlance).

But there is the potential for hackers to threaten the use of such a code in a bid to get companies to pay a ransom or suffer a disruptive and damaging attack.

British telco company TalkTalk lost more than 100,000 customers and £60 million as a result of a cyber attack carried out in October last year. The alleged teenage culprit had reportedly demanded 465 bitcoins which at the time which was worth £216,000.

Mr Moores said such tools were becoming “weaponised” by hackers.

Cyber security is no longer solely about protecting data as corporations are becoming increasingly concerned about “shareholder and customer confidence,” he said.

It is not known exactly which banks are stockpiling the untraceable digital currency (presumably as to not encourage attacks for ransom) but it highlights an interesting shift in how some of the biggest corporations are approaching the threat of cyber attacks.

Australia’s banks won’t talk about cyber crime.Source:Supplied

Australia’s major banks won’t discuss their own policy when it comes to possibly dealing with cyber criminal syndicates in such a fashion.

The Commonwealth Bank declined to comment when asked by news.com.au if it would consider paying a ransom in order to avoid a potentially worse financial injury.

“Commonwealth Bank views cyber security is an important national issue and a shared responsibility. As technology is rapidly transforming economies around the world and creating new opportunities for growth and prosperity, we recognise there needs to be a sustained focus on cyber security from government and industry to create a strong, secure and resilient modern economy,” a spokesperson said.

ANZ bank was also reticent to share its position when it came to such a situation.

“ANZ takes cyber security very seriously. Our customers rely on us to keep their money and information safe, we have a team of experts who work around the clock to pre-empt and respond to threats. Due to the nature of this work it’s not appropriate for us to comment any further,” a spokesperson said.

Data on the details and cost of cyber attacks on the financial system is not available given attacks are not reported under Australian law.

However in a recent submission to the government’s Productivity Commission, the Australian Bankers’ Association said the cost of cybercrime in Australia was at least $1 billion a year for individuals alone and would be much higher if governments and businesses were included in that figure.

news.com.au 26 Oct 2016

Notice how Aussie banks are keeping silent on the matter.

Why are they deceiving the public?

They'll also have you believe that 'internet banking' is safe.
 

Australia the paedophile's paradise?

So, this is how 'law' works in Australia,

You cannot 'get away' with a parking ticket which is listed as a criminal offence in court, as 'owner onus' illegally applies, where innocent until proven guilty was taken away from you.

The herd populace is told that every phone conversation is logged in order to stamp out crime.

The sheeple are told that their viewing of every internet site is logged, so that criminal activity can be eradicated including child abuse, which includes child porn.

Here's the best part about it, if/when you do get caught you can get away with it.

Maybe not just anyone.

Maybe you have to be part of the 'brotherhood', but that would be a 'conspiracy theory', right?

It also helps if you get a 'sympathetic' judge to your cause.

See article from 24 Oct 1026 from 9news.com.au of the headline:

Ex-Deloitte director avoids jail over child porn

Stephan Sparrius avoids jail for possessing hundreds of child pornography images. (Source: AAP)

A former director at Deloitte Australia has avoided a jail term for possessing more than 300 child pornography images and videos.

Stephan Sparrius, 41, was interstate for his $240,000-a-year job at the finance firm when police searched his Surry Hills home in March this year.

Images depicting underage boys naked and in sexual acts were found on numerous devices and in a book with a foreign title, police alleged in facts tendered to the court.

In handing down her sentence on Monday, Magistrate Susan McIntyre said the children in the images had likely suffered "irretrievably" as a result of their exploitation.

But she said most of the images and videos fell into the lowest category of seriousness and that a dissemination charge related to Sparrius receiving a video on a website rather than spreading it for money.

Sparrius was contacted by police during the search of his home and gave them passwords to computers and iPad, the documents reveal.

He made admissions on returning to NSW and later pleaded guilty to numerous possession and one dissemination charge.

The prosecution had asked that Sparrius, who no longer works for Deloitte, serve a jail term.

But Ms McIntyre told the Downing Centre Local Court he was a low risk of reoffending due to his "intelligence" and insight into his offending.

She gave him a 15-month intensive correction order on the condition he be subject to searches and monitoring deemed suitable by a supervisor.

As a director, Sparrius was a senior employee rather than an executive or partner of Deloitte Australia.

Austalia selling its occupied land to the Chinese

So this is how it goes,

This continent was invaded, with the blessing of Queen Victoria, by Captain Cook, where officially Martial Law was the only law for 40 years, something they do not teach the children of the cannon fodder in primary school, BUGGER!!!

The land was taken under arms (and STILL is until today) from the original inhabitants, where no treaty was made, unlike with the Indigenous tribes of 'New Zealand' under the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

Today we have some assholes under the banner of  "business people and industry leaders" selling this country to the Chinese....

Thankfully this place is only an "economic project" as stated by Abbott.

Image how this place could be if it actually had some sort of real law....

See article from 24 Oct 2016 by news.com.au of the headline:

West meets East in historic passenger flight from Toowoomba to Shanghai

A QANTAS A330 has soared into the history books, making the first ever international passenger flight from Toowoomba’s two-year-old airport to Shanghai, China. Picture: News Corp Australia

Robyn IronsideNews Corp Australia Network

A PRIVATELY funded airport built on a cow paddock west of Brisbane has racked up another milestone — seeing off its first ever international passenger flight. 

A Qantas A330 took off from Wellcamp Airport in Toowoomba Sunday morning carrying a 250-strong delegation of business people and industry leaders, bound for Shanghai in China.

The brainchild of Food Leasers Australia CEO Dr Ben Lyons, the trade mission is designed to attract Chinese business back to the Darling Downs which will soon be the home of a new infant formula factory.

“We can sit back here and wait for the Chinese opportunities to come, but I think there is much more to be said about being proactive about the China opportunity,” said Dr Lyons.

Up, up and away. Historic first international passenger flight from the privately built Wellcamp Airport in Toowoomba. Picture: Beau Chenery — PlaneImages.netSource:Supplied

More than 250 passengers boarded the eight-hour charter flight which began its historic journey 38 minutes late.

They included beef producers and processors, service firms and property owners.

Wellcamp “Brisbane West” Airport was built by the local Wagner family over just 18-months, and opened in 2014 with a regular QantasLink service to Sydney.

Since then, flights to Cairns, Melbourne and Townsville have been added by Airnorth.

In a further boost to the region’s Chinese push, Hong Kong-based carrier Cathay Pacific will commence weekly international freight flights on November 22.

And we're off. First ever international passenger flight from Toowoomba to China takes off from Wellcamp Airport. Picture: Beau Chenery/PlaneImages.netSource:Supplied

The service is expected to take locally grown lettuce, beef, mangoes, and pecans to Hong Kong on a Boeing 747-8F.

The airport’s runway was built to accommodate aircraft up to a Boeing 747 and the owners have made no secret of the fact they hope to operate as another international gateway to Australia.

Located about two-hours drive from Brisbane, Wellcamp Airport recently took out an Australian Engineering Excellence Award in the Project Infrastructure category.

New policy of no warrants (from ASIO) for the British colony, Australia

Many people have been very vocal with a new proposal from an arm of the Australian government to detain people for up to a week without a warrant from a judge.

In other words you can be tortured illegally (without a warrant) on the basis of someone's misguided decision, without the interaction of a court.

ASIO now wants to detain people without a warrant.

There is a common catch phrase that people use with regards to law namely:

"Innocent until proven guilty",

but this does not apply in Australia.

In Australia the legal system functions on strict and absolute liabilities, basically Roman law.

In a nutshell:

Absolute liability - First and foremost you are guilty and a penalty is enforced,

Strict liability - You are guilty and you must prove your innocence.

Good example of these is 'owner onus' and parking fines, where your matter is listed in the court system as criminal and not civil.

Another lesser known aspect of law is that among all the deceptive Acts, treaties and statutes is that Australia is a colony of the British empire.

Many a QC, constitutional lawyer or law researcher would sure have plenty to say about the above statement, maybe calling reference to Sue v Hill, an entity called the 'Queen of Australia', the Balfour Declaration, Treaty of Versailles, Unidroit Treaty, Lima Declaration or even entry into the U.N.

From the paperwork that we have obtained there is no debate nor 'interpretation' of law, with regards to Australia still being a colony.

This is reflected by the laws that are instilled forced on the people and not voted as required by law on certain matters.

See article from 27 Aug 2016 by smh.com.au of the headline:

ASIO asks for detention powers without warrant from judge

ASIO has proposed scrapping the need for judge-approved warrants to detain and question Australians for up to a week without charge in terrorism investigations, in a watering down of safeguards that has alarmed lawyers and rights advocates.

The power to grant the security agency a controversial "questioning and detention warrant" would rest instead with the Attorney-General – a situation the Law Council of Australia has branded "unprecedented".

Concerns over ASIO questioning powers

Australia's intelligence agency - ASIO - has asked for detention powers without warrant from judge. Fairfax's David Wroe explains.

The changes being requested by ASIO would also remove a current separate requirement that an independent legal authority, such as a retired judge, is present when a person is being questioned. Rather, oversight of questioning would rest with the intelligence watchdog, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

Under laws passed in the wake of the September 11 and Bali bombing attacks, ASIO has the power to hold someone for up to seven days and question them if it may "substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to a terrorism offence", even if the person isn't a terrorism suspect themselves.

 

ASIO head Duncan Lewis says a streamlining of the process "would be most desirable". Photo: Andrew Meares

ASIO head Duncan Lewis told a review inquiry last week into the laws that the organisation would "support amendments to the legislation to make the regime more efficient and effective for use in the current security environment".

While ASIO's submission to the inquiry by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is confidential, Mr Lewis told the hearing that "it would be most desirable in our view for there to be a streamlining of the warrant authorisation process" whereby authority for the warrants was given by the Attorney-General.

Currently ASIO needs an "issuing authority" in the form of a serving judge to approve the warrant.
The laws include both "questioning warrants", which make it an offence to refuse to answer ASIO's questions and also "questioning and detention warrants", which allow ASIO to have the Australian Federal Police arrest and hold someone so ASIO can question them.

The agency, in this building, wants powers of detention described as "unprecedented" by alarmed lawyers and rights advocates.

Mr Lewis told the hearing these powers were "fundamental to ASIO's work in responding to the terrorism threat that we face".

Police and intelligence agencies say that terrorism plots in the Islamic State era are increasingly rudimentary and fast-moving, which means processes such as obtaining warrants need to be streamlined as much as possible so authorities can swoop to protect the public.

But the detention warrants have never actually been used in the 11 years they've been in place. Questioning warrants have been used 16 times since 2004, though not since 2009.

The Attorney-General already has the power to approve intelligence-gathering methods such as phone intercepts and surveillance.

But Law Council of Australia director Arthur Moses, SC, who also gave evidence to the inquiry, told Fairfax Media: "We're talking here about persons being detained in custody and deprived of their liberty. That takes it to an entirely different level."

"Western democracies have always taken the position that we do not in effect have a situation where a politician can give that authority … Usually people have the protection of a judicial officer … In my view it's unprecedented.

"We accept and understand that in respect of an evolving security threat environment, sometimes legislation and procedures need to be amended … but we are not aware of any issue that has arisen where ASIO has attempted to obtain a detention warrant and it has not been able to."

Mr Lewis told the inquiry just because they had not been used recently did not mean they weren't vital. They could be used in the future, he said.

He also said it was an "unnecessary belt and braces situation" to require a retired judge or magistrate to sit in the questioning sessions, given the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security could provide oversight anyway.

University of New South Wales law professor George Williams said countries such as the United States and Britain did not permit such detention for questioning.

"To my knowledge, Australia is the only Western democracy that enables people who are not suspects to be held for up to a week coercively for intelligence-gathering purposes," he said.

"The thought of removing what is one of the few significant checks on the powers is deeply concerning."

But Jacinta Carroll, a counter-terrorism expert at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and former security official, said the last nine plots disrupted had all posed imminent threats and there was therefore a "logical and compelling case" for streamlining the process.

She said the fact that detention powers had never been used showed ASIO was extremely cautious in the way it used its powers.

She said while this was a "pretty heavy power", it made as much sense for the Attorney-General as first law officer to authorise warrants as a judge.

Bret Walker, SC, the former monitor, said he would want ASIO to show the inquiry examples of where the current law had proved deficient.

"The nature of the powers in some sense are drastic . . . so I would really like to look at real-life, demonstrated deficiency before we look at relaxing safeguards," he said.