The Cheryl Lacey Show
Where curiosity meets courage. The Cheryl Lacey Show. When truth matters share it.
The Cheryl Lacey Show
VOTE CHAOS: Pauline Hanson is the Wrecking Ball Australia Needs
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
The major parties have had decades to get it right, and they haven't. In a system so captured by vested interests and career politicians, could voting for Pauline Hanson be a rational act of protest? Not because you agree with everything she says, but because disruption has a value of its own. Mike Holt recommends a "spoiler vote," and what it will ultimately achieve for Australia. One Nation's presence can force an overthrow of a duopoly we have suffered for more than 100 years.
A conversation with Mike Holt
Australians are fed up. Pauline Hansen's rise is certainly proof of that. But fed up with what exactly? Most people couldn't tell you. They just know something isn't right. Welcome to the Cheryl Lacey show where curiosity meets courage. And my guest can tell you today exactly what isn't right and how it's come to be. Welcome to the show, Mike Holt.
SPEAKER_01Thank you.
SPEAKER_00Mike, the current state of play is telling us that sure, in the past, Pauline Hansen has been dismissed, written off, sent to jail, released and laughed at for close to 30 years. And yet here we are. Her popularity is flying. What can this tell us about what's happening in Australia?
SPEAKER_01Well, I think it first of all tells us that most of the people in Australia today are fed up with the way that the government is behaving. They don't listen to us, they don't take care of our needs and uh wishes. Um and generally speaking, all they're doing is harming us. They're imposing un unlawful and illegal fines, rates, um charges for utilities that they shouldn't be doing, taxation, uh everything that the US um rebels went and accused England of uh when they started their revolution. This government government has been doing exactly the same thing as King George III.
SPEAKER_00So clearly our Australians are angry, and you pointed out some reasons why that's the case. Is it fair to say that despite this anger, we really don't know where it stems from, other than what you've just said there? These are the consequences, but there's clearly an historical context here, and you've certainly mentioned that with the United States. Is something similar going on here in Australia?
SPEAKER_01Yes. It's happening all over the world because in fact, all our Western countries have been attacked by the same mob. The World Economic Forum, which is composed of military, um, big business and banking, uh, who think that they have a God-given right to tell us how to live our lives and rule us in a communist worldwide state. And we the people are not going to bow down to that.
SPEAKER_00No, indeed. And so let's go back focusing on Australia, let's go back to where all of this starts. I believe it was the 1890s when the drafting of the constitution began, and a group of men sat down to write this constitution. And you're suggesting that there are issues uh that we need to look at historically. And so from this point forward, was the constitution that was drafted actually approved by the people of Australia at the time?
SPEAKER_01Not all the people. It was uh the only people who could vote on it were landholders, the landed gentry, as they called it. Um the ordinary worker and the the aboriginals had no say. So out of a population of what, three million, less than one-third approved the constitution draft that was sent over to England. Now, of course, the problem was when it got to England, the English Parliament um created even more controversy uh by adding things to the constitution that the original uh writers never intended. So the constitution that was hoisted on us in 1901 uh wasn't what we originally wanted, and it certainly did not take into account the needs and wishes of the people of Australia. It was designed as a co control mechanism by the Parliament of London.
SPEAKER_00So then if we think about the Constitution and how we've been educated to understand it, it seems to the lay person and all of us being lay people, really, without this knowledge, that any further amendments to that constitution, which you're saying didn't really happen anyway, can be done by referendum and needs to be done by referendum, but that clearly hasn't been the case either. How many attempts at uh changes to this constitution have occurred and how many have been successful?
SPEAKER_01Well, we've had 44 referendum questions put to us. That wasn't the number of referendums that were held, that's the number of questions. Forty-four referendum questions out of that? How many do you think we actually voted for?
SPEAKER_00I would hazard a guess that it might be about between eight and ten, twelve.
SPEAKER_01Only eight. The rest were thrown out because the people saw clearly that they were attempts by the political parties to impose even more control over us.
SPEAKER_00So this government control is not constitutionally presented. It's a control mechanism coming directly from the United Kingdom?
SPEAKER_01It originally was, because the United Kingdom put its own rules on onto our constitution. And I say our constitution because most people seem to think that it is our constitution, but in fact, it's not. It's just a rubbish piece of paper, I'm afraid. And the problem here is most people don't even understand what a constitution is. It is not a protection in the law for us, it is not a set of rules for we the people, it is actually a workplace contract between the people of this nation and the parliament that we elect to govern in our place. So they are representatives. Now the problem is that doesn't happen. First of all, the Constitution, because it doesn't actually exist, has absolutely no power over the parliament. But that's what it was designed to do. It was designed to tell the people of Australia how to set up a parliament, and it talks about the three um uh parts of the government, actually the four, and that is the um the parliament, the military, the uh bureaucracy, and um the church. Right. So it was designed the church or the courts? Sorry, church and courts. So there's five five sections of society it was supposed to govern. Um and if you read through the constitution carefully, you'll see that it tells the parliament exactly what they are supposed to do in section 51. It lists a whole bunch of things that it's supposed to do, and that it is not allowed to step out of those 51 things. It's way over overstepped its bounds by miles.
SPEAKER_00Okay, so this is where it gets a bit confusing because most Australians think that they are living in one country being Australia with one Commonwealth government. But that's not actually what you're saying. That's not true. And the confusion there is also uh the fact that there's a constitution that's telling us what should be, but it's actually not really what is. So why is it so hard for us Australians to actually change this document that no one's following anyway?
SPEAKER_01Because we have a criminal conspiracy in charge of this country. And it's been a criminal conspiracy since 1901, because it never has been what we expected it to be. So when they they passed the constitution and and told everybody in Australia this is your new constitution, only one-third of the people had approved that. The other two-thirds had nothing to do with it, and that cannot be the proper constitution for a country.
SPEAKER_00Well, no, it's certainly a takeover, isn't it, of by a minimum number of people. So 1901, clearly, uh from what you've stated, that's where our issues began, but they have continued because we're now talking more than 120 years since this occurred. So we've been operating or governed ineffectively and unlawfully uh for more than 120 years. And it seems that there's been certain historical contexts and events along the way that have interrupted any attempts by groups or individuals that knew about this back then, and one of them likely would have been the First World War. And that for 1914 to 18 period, chances are that there were people who who did know what was happening, they were perhaps even trying to get cases in court, all came to a screaming halt because of that war. And then suddenly we get the League of Nations. So let's go to 1919, when the First World War had just ended.
SPEAKER_01All right, well, before we do, I just want to uh clarify one thing. You asked before um why didn't we get the government we expected? And our founding fathers made a couple of very glaring mistakes. The first one was they did not um uh stand down all the state parliaments. So you cannot run a ship with seven captains, it just doesn't work. And that's what we have today. We have the federal government and the six state governments, and we're never going to get any agreement between them. It just hasn't happened. And the second thing was they fooled us with the constitution in section 128 into believing that we had the power to amend the constitution to bring in specific laws uh affecting the constitution, but only the constitution. They put the power to make laws into the hands of the parliament. But when you have a parliament that is un, it has absolutely no um reason to be accountable to the people, they just do whatever they want, and they have.
SPEAKER_00So the parliament has no constitutional basis, is what we're saying.
SPEAKER_01Correct.
SPEAKER_00And therefore, it's a free-for-all for what parliament is doing. And then you talk about the states, which in effect were colonies, we're still functioning separately there, and that explains a lot of the issues that we're having, particularly around COAG and national cabinets. So is it fair to say that that the politicians do know about this and they've also been silenced, and they are going along with this?
SPEAKER_01Oh, of course they are, because it's their jobs on the line. I was a member of the Liberal Party many years ago before I woke up. Uh actually that helped me wake up. Um, and I cornered um Ted O'Brien, who was one of the guys up here on the Sunshine Coast. He's now our federal representative. And I asked him one day, actually, he came to me and he said, Mike, you've got to stop lobbying the Liberal Party or any party to bring in citizens-initiated referendums, because that's what I've always stood for. And uh I said, Why? And he said, because the political parties will never put the power of the citizens-initiated referendums into the hands of the people, because it would take away their power. And it's all about that, all about power.
SPEAKER_00Indeed. And we are going to talk about the citizens-initiated referendums shortly, because I know that's something that Pauline Hansen has talked about, and it's slightly different, I believe, to what your uh approach is with that. So let's park that for a minute. And for our viewers and listeners, let's get back to the historical context that's led to this mess we're in today. Because, as we've said, Australians are extremely frustrated, they are angry, and the best way to understand that is to follow that historical flow so that there is that understanding that they're not being duped by being fooled into thinking that they're fools. They're not. If they're angry, they've got good reason for being so. So let's get back to the League of Nations. And Australian politicians went to Paris, and the whole point of the League of Nations was what?
SPEAKER_01To stop any future wars. So it was spectacularly unsuccessful at that. But the what we need to look at here is why did the politicians, the Labour government, go over to Paris and sign an accord to join the League of Nations when they had no reason to do so. We were not an independent sovereign nation. We were still a British colony. So, where did they get that power?
SPEAKER_00Well, that's true. And the other thing, too, is that the Australians likely at the at the time weren't asked to make a vote on that either.
SPEAKER_01No, they weren't. The Labour Party just decided to go and do it. And this is what they've done throughout history. They just go ahead and assume the power, which they don't have, because if the people don't give them the authority, they have none.
SPEAKER_00Now, my understanding is that the the United Nations, sorry, not the United Nations, the United States were one of the driving forces behind the League of Nations. But in fact, they never actually joined the League of Nations in the end, which left it left the United Kingdom to effectively, or the Brits to effectively take control of that and be the leading funder of the League of Nations. So what happened beyond that when the United States walked away? Did that give the Brits more power around the world?
SPEAKER_01Yes, um, because the the Brits have been the um the fundamental financial uh driver behind everything since before World War I. And so they wanted to keep their um power, and the Americans walked away mainly because of that. It would have taken the power away from the Americans if they had joined, and they would have been subservient to the Brits, which they didn't want to be, obviously.
SPEAKER_00So we've got this constant battle here, historically starting back in the 1890s, working through. And then, of course, with this League of Nations, lo and behold, not long after, in the scheme of things, we've got a whole other international agreement taking place with our now United Nations. So the League of Nations comes to an end because of a Second World War, and bingo, we've got more happening here. But this is what's really quite interesting because my understanding is that Australia was party to some of the drafting of the UN charter, but who were they really representing when they got involved in this in San Francisco?
SPEAKER_01They were representing their own party interests. They weren't representing the people. We never told them to go and get the the um United Nations to lord it over us. I've always believed we had a government that was supposed to be serving the people. That never happened.
SPEAKER_00No. So effectively, what we've done, Australia we've helped architect this global order that we have, and Australians actually never voted on this global order. So so is it fair to say that in shaping this global order being the United Nations, Australia has shaped the way in which Australia has been governed ever since as well.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and it's it's all been aimed at a world government. This is what they're still doing today. They're trying to bring in by 2030 a worldwide government. Everything. Government, social, and religious, political, all under the United Nations World Economic Forum. And if you've ever seen Klaus Schwab talking on TV, would you want that Nazi telling us what to do?
SPEAKER_00Well, I think that a lot of our listeners and viewers would be shaking their heads already with what we've been discussing. Let's bring it back home to more present day. We've got because we've got the historical context here where we understand that the constitution was never agreed to as drafted, and not only that, it was only voted on by around about a third of the voting or a third of the population. Uh so we've we've continued to have separate states, if you will, or colonies controlling the country, albeit that we think that it's a Commonwealth or federal government, which, you know, again a play on words there. And essentially, since that period, we've had a strong focus predominantly on Labour and Liberal being in control of the country. So how have they continued to use this false system to keep it that way?
SPEAKER_01Fraud. And fraud vitiates everything. It's that simple. It's all been fraudulent. You know, all the laws, all the legislation they've passed, all the controls they put into place, even the police are not the police. They are policy enforcers. They are there to enforce the policies created by the political parties. What were our police? The Commonwealth police who wore khaki. Right? Not blue, the Admiralty blue, which is what we're under now, Admiralty law. And they wear blue because that's the colour of the ocean.
SPEAKER_00Now it's interesting, isn't it? Because when we look at things like preferential voting, and you just mention policy as opposed to uh law, it makes sense that something like preferential voting that keeps Labour and Liberal, the two major parties in control, it seems as though they're effectively working together. And it comes back to that whole intention of what a constitution should have enabled, which is we the people, determining what it is that we desire our representatives to be doing on our behalf. So they've structured a preferential system to keep them in control, and they're knowing that they're only developing their own policy and pretending that it's law.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and this is why we you know when people look at the government and the way they behaved and all the rules and regulations they bring in, everybody says, oh, they've just moved the goalposts again. Why did they do that? Because they can, and they do. Now, I think in the late 1990s, 98 or something, I think it was, Kevin Rudd uh conspired with um oh somebody else, I can't remember his name offhand, to bring in the Reprints Act. Now, if you if you're listening to this, I suggest you go and look up the Reprints Act. You'll find it on CIR.net, sorry, CIRNow.net, and just look for the article called Criminals in Government and watch the video. It explains it very, very clearly. So when they gave themselves the right and the and the authority to change the laws at WIM without going to the people, they just decide, okay, I'm going to change this law because I don't like that one, and they can change it to whatever they want. Now, if you go and look up the laws that are always posted on the website, government website, OSLI, A-U-S-T-L-I-I, you go and look up any laws there that have been amended by this government or these governments, because it's been going on a long time, you'll see at the bottom of that act uh um copyright to the name of their corporation and underneath it for education purposes only. Well, a law, a proper law, is not for education, it's to you know to protect us. So they can't afford it. They've got to show us what they've been doing. So let's go on there from now to um the formation of the UN to what happened in Australia after the war. Of course, we had Bob Menzies, Pig Iron Bob. And while he purported to stand up for the Royal Crown and all of that, he was very much into that. He was a traitor to Australia. First of all, he sold pig iron to the Japanese during the war, arming the enemy. And he never he got away with it. How did he do that? He was in power. After the war, they brought in the Pensions Act. Now, by the that was in 47, I think, or 48, they brought in the Pensions Act. And by the early 1950s, it had so much money in it that the politicians looked at it and went, Oh, money, money, money. And they put it into the general revenue and stole it. So we don't even have a pension system anymore. It's all been stolen. And the pensions that we are paid for come out of the general revenue, not the pension fund.
SPEAKER_00Look, we can go on and on and we will, because this is the first of a series that we're doing to bring education to Australians to support their rightful anger in the way in which Australia is currently being governed, but more importantly, the difficulties that so many are facing with their livelihoods and their financial and other security. So we've got a lot to talk about. Let's bring this one to the current day, because we did begin with Pauline Hansen and we talked about the manner in which she's been able to have Australians start thinking differently. However, putting questions to Pauline like this may well be a bit of a challenge because she is also part of this system. So where does it fall short with Pauline at the moment and the movement that she's rightfully creating to have people come out of the woodwork who have been angry over these last you know few decades, particularly more recently, the two political parties. And what impact do you think she can have?
SPEAKER_01Well, you know my my um stance towards any political party and including one nation, but I will say this that she is a spoiler. She's ripping apart the two-party preferred system, and for that I will support her. But you also need to look at her policies, because her policies are very bare. She doesn't go into any details on how she will implement them. She's just got a very small list of policies. You've seen them, I've read them, and their policies don't say anything really. Maybe they've got other documentation behind the scenes that explains exactly how they're going to do it. But when I started investigating just one of those policies, CIR, Citizens Initiated Referendums, I found some very worrying differences, and we'll cover that later on. But if if anybody is considering voting for Pauline, my advice would be do it, because she's going to spoil the current system. But what's going to happen after that? I don't think she has the brains or the knowledge to govern this country well. And it's only going to cause more difficulty in the long run.
SPEAKER_00So what we've actually got is we have another party who is part of this corrupt system who will ultimately require the support of the two major parties who we know are, from what you've said, are fully aware, uh, perhaps not all members, but a number of members of those parties are aware of this historical context. So she's either got to play the game or not. If she's been there 30 years, there would be some knowledge that she would have, but certainly given the 30 years that she's been under attack, essentially, she's had nowhere to go. So we have to give her credit for sticking to the game, if you will, because she is outspoken. But what you're saying is that despite that, she's still stuck because we actually need a total overhaul and a complete recreation of governance in Australia.
SPEAKER_01I would agree with that 100%. And I don't think she's aware of that, and I don't think she's capable of doing it. That's my problem with her.
SPEAKER_00Well, the issue would be is that if she was aware and wasn't prepared to bring it to the Australian people as you and I are doing today, you've already got a problem, yes?
SPEAKER_01Yep, and she hasn't done that, has she?
SPEAKER_00No, no. So let's take a look. You mentioned that you did look at one of the policies, and that was regarding the uh citizens informated initiated referendum. Sorry, I said informed there. Citizens initiated referendum. And if people are aware, and for many of our viewers and listeners that are aware of your work, Mike, they would be aware that you also are very determined to have this citizens initiated referendum. So at a glance I might say, oh great, Pauline and Mike are thinking the same thing. I don't think from what you've said that's exactly the case. You've got a much bigger plan.
SPEAKER_01I do.
SPEAKER_00So let's talk about this plan that you've got. Where does it start? And uh let's sort of unpack, first of all, the the citizens-initiated referendum and the difference between hers and yours.
SPEAKER_01Right. Well, as you know, um, Cheryl, we have a plan in place. It's called FuturePlan.earth website. So go there and have a look. And it's a five-step plan. And with just those five steps, we could get our country back on track. But we have to start by dismantling the current system and installing a uh caretaker government until we can get implement this plan properly. Now we've been working on this plan for a long time, and we have all the elements almost in place now. Uh most of it, sorry, the most important part of it is the voting app that we're going to bring in. It's been under development now for at least a year that I can recall, and that voting app will give us every single Australian voting or voting age Australian will give us the ability to vote on um issues at the time that we need to vote. Not every three years, a big bang election, right? So if you've got a local issue that needs to be resolved now, you'll be able to vote in a local issue uh vote and change the law. Right? If it's a national issue, we'll be able to change it right there and then by vote. So it'll be a majority vote. And we will use a digital um voting app uh which is based on the blockchain. So it's almost impossible to hack. I mean, the longer your password, the the more difficult it is to hack. So we're going to be teaching people how to use this voting app. It'll be coming out very soon. And it will be tied to some other apps. And when we bring it out, there's going to be a lot of very happy people and very, very eager to take it up. So what we're going to do, rather than having a revolution to get rid of the old guard, we're going to ease them out by giving the people another alternative.
SPEAKER_00And that's exactly what this is. You talked about a five-step plan. The citizens-initiated referendum is part of that. Pauline Hansen has made reference to that, not the same as yours. But what is happening is that through Pauline's in uh popularity, the this particular concept is going to be uh front of mind for Australians who are voting for Pauline, which gives you a terrific leverage to introduce your concept. So I think for our listeners, the most important thing is that they know something's wrong. We know that a difference has to be made, and we know that this is the starting point. So, Mike, when we get back on the show, let's go look at those five and really uh dive in a lot deeper, but more importantly, know that where Pauline Hansen is coming in, everyone has the right to be angry, but also until such a system has replaced what we currently have, voting for Pauline Hansen is a positive step forward.
SPEAKER_01I believe so, yes.
SPEAKER_00Great. Well done. Thanks, Mike, and terrific to have you on the show. Look forward to having you back for further conversations around how Australians get Australia back. You're on thank you. You've been watching the Cheryl Lacey show with Mike Holt, and uh this is where curiosity meets courage, and our next conversation will be just as courageous. Thanks for joining us.