The 7 most outrageous public remarks of Malcolm Turnbull’s Prime Ministership

18th January, 2017

1. Citing Mao Zedong’s Communist China as a model to emulate

Mao Zedong was the founder and dictator of Communist China from 1949 until his death in 1976. Professor Frank Dikötter, a specialist in Chinese History at the University of Hong Kong, recently estimated that under Mao’s reign a minimum of 45 million Chinese people (mostly rural peasants) were murdered by the Communist regime, the greatest mass murder in world history. People were variously starved to death, beaten to death, or worked to death as slave labourers. Countless people were also tortured to death via unspeakably cruel and perverted methods, including burying them alive in human excrement.

Nevertheless, Malcolm Turnbull saw fit to approvingly cite Mao’s China in an interview with Sydney Morning Herald columnist Peter Hartcher [26th Oct, 2015]:

“Most profoundly, [Turnbull] wants to change the culture; the culture of government, the culture of politics, the culture of business. Even the way Australia presents itself to the world. He cites the founder of modern China, Mao Zedong, in a famous declaration attributed to him in the creation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 when he said: “The Chinese people have stood up!” And Turnbull adapts it for Australia: “Modern China is built upon an assertion of national sovereignty. And that is why we say to China, ‘The Australian people stand up!”‘ repeating it in Mandarin.”

2. Supporting Syria power-sharing deal with ISIS terrorists

In November 2015, Turnbull said the right approach in Syria is a peacefully negotiated power-sharing deal involving compromise between the various warring factions (which include barbarians like ISIS).

“Where Syria in an ideal world would end up.. is with a regime or a form of government that involved power sharing between the various groups,” — Malcolm Turnbull

This was considered so ridiculous that even Labor’s left-faction leader, Anthony Albanese, opposed it. The following is an excerpt from an interview on Channel 10’s The Bolt Report:

ANDREW BOLT: “Listen, this week, Malcolm Turnbull suggested a ceasefire and a power-sharing deal in Syria that could involve supporters of the Islamic State. Can you see such a peace plan working?”

ANTHONY ALBANESE: “Well, look, absolutely not and it’s an extraordinary thing for Malcolm Turnbull to leave open, such an option. But, again, it’s typical of Malcolm Turnbull. He doesn’t know when to stop talking and make a clear statement. Clearly these people who want to destroy Western civilisation and return to barbarism have no role to play in any civilised arrangements going forward. These people need to be wiped out because what they seek to do is to wipe us and our way of life out. It’s that simple, and Malcolm Turnbull needs to be very clear in his language about that”

3. Saying non-aboriginal Australians are foreigners

Turnbull has made a series of comments implying that European colonisation of Australia was immoral, and that non-aboriginal Australians, even if born and raised in Australia, are foreign invaders who can’t legitimately own any of the land.

For instance, in March of 2016 Turnbull gave a speech at Western Sydney University praising violent resistance to European colonisation of Australia. In particular, he praised an aboriginal man who is recorded as having murdered at least one settler (allegedly many more), and engaged in a long and violent campaign against others:

“Now we acknowledge the Darug people, upon whose lands we meet and we honour their elders past and present. And we especially honour the courageous resistance of the Bidjigal man, Pemulwuy, originally from Botany Bay district, who led the resistance against British settlers right across the Sydney Basin, especially here in what we now call Western Sydney.”

The following is an account of the murder of British gamekeeper John McIntyre in December, 1790:

“About one o’clock, the sergeant was awakened by a rustling noise in the bushes near him, and supposing it to proceed from a kangaroo, called to his comrades, who instantly jumped up. On looking about more narrowly, they saw two natives with spears in their hands, creeping towards them, and three others a little farther behind. As this naturally created alarm, McIntyre said, “don’t be afraid, I know them,” and immediately laying down his gun, stepped forward, and spoke to them in their own language. The Indians, finding they were discovered, kept slowly retreating, and McIntyre accompanied them about a hundred yards, talking familiarly all the while. One of them now jumped on a fallen tree and, without giving the least warning of his intention, launched his spear at McIntyre and lodged it in his left side. The person who committed this wanton act was described as a young man with a speck or blemish on his left eye. That he had been lately among us was evident from his being newly shaved.” 1

McIntyre subsequently died of his injuries, and a group of aborigines identified Pemulwuy as the murderer.1

Pemulwuy went on to wage a campaign of violence, robbery and property destruction, including the alleged murder of another man, and the wounding of several more. When he was finally killed, a group of aborigines brought his severed head to NSW Governor Philip Gidley King, saying he “had been the cause of all that had happened”.2

Furthermore, at a June 2016 press conference Turnbull said that the colonisation of Australia could fairly be described as an “invasion” and that Australia “was, is, and always will be, aboriginal land”.

Bill Shorten had previously refused to say that he personally thought colonisation was an invasion, merely saying he understood why people of aboriginal descent felt that way.

Turnbull continued in this vein on the 30th of August 2016 when, at the opening of federal Parliament, he gave a speech at the “Welcome to Country” ceremony, telling people of aboriginal descent:

“You honour us as you welcome us, the Members of the 45th Parliament to your Country. Yanggu gulanyin ngalawiri, dhunayi, Ngunawal dhawra. Wanggarralijinyin mariny bulan bugarabang.”

He then proudly tweeted it out :


4. Saying France is the “home of freedom”

On the 13th of November 2015, a series of co-ordinated Islamist terrorist attacks occurred in Paris, France, resulting in the deaths of 130 victims.

Turnbull, who was in Europe at the time, had a predictably weak response to the attacks saying we should respond by singing together, and that “freedom stands up for itself”. He added that there was no need to raise the terror alert level.

Another very telling point Turnbull made though, went completely under the radar. He called Paris, France the “home of freedom”:

“Yet again we have seen a shocking terrorist attack in Paris. Paris, France, the home of freedom has been assaulted by terrorists determined to attack and suppress freedom, not just in France, but throughout the world…”

Note that France is one of the highest taxing nations in the world. As of 2014, taxes in France amounted to 47.9% of GDP, the third highest in the world behind Denmark and Belgium. The country takes a lowly 75th place on the Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Index of Economic Freedom, behind numerous former communist countries.

Turnbull’s “home of freedom” is probably a reference to the French Revolution, which was an orgy of sickening atrocities carried out by violent left-wing radicals, particularly against Christians.

During the ‘Reign of Terror’ period of 1793-94, the Revolutionary governing committee in Paris ordered a genocide in the Vendée region of France. The military general in charge of the massacre, Louis Marie Turreau, specifically inquired about “the fate of the women and children I will encounter in rebel territory” and the governing committee responded saying “eliminate the brigands to the last man, there is your duty…”.3 Tens of thousands of men, women and children were subsequently massacred, and their farms and villages burnt to the ground.

In the city of Nantes, there were mass executions of men, women and children via drowning. The victims would be stripped naked, tied up and forced onto boats specially constructed to be towed out to the middle of the river Loire and then sunk. The Revolutionary in charge of the massacre, Jean-Baptiste Carrier, called this process “the national bathtub”.4

Contrary to Turnbull, Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, said London, England was the “ancient home of freedom“, and called the National Library’s purchase of an original 1297 issue of the Magna Carta, which he authorised and funded from the Prime Minister’s Department, “the most important [purchase] yet made by an Australian library“.

5. Saying the US is “stronger than ever” under Obama

US President Barack Obama is a leftist who has, for eight years, presided over a country with high unemployment, falling living standards, rampant illegal immigration, a foreign policy that supports Muslim terrorists, and a national debt that has increased by over 9 trillion dollars, to a total of $20 trillion.

Furthermore, Obama has used the taxation bureaucracy to selectively and unfairly target conservative and Christian groups in the United States, an outrageous abuse of executive power.

Nevertheless, Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of Australia’s so-called “conservative” Coalition, feels the need to offer Obama the highest praise on every possible occasion.

For instance, during a trip to Washington, D.C., in January 2016, Turnbull said that the United States’, under Obama’s leadership, is “stronger than ever”.

In November 2016 there was another episode of fawning adulation during the APEC summit in Peru, with Turnbull mourning over the soon-to-be end of the Obama presidency:

“It is great moment and a sad moment to have our last meeting in your capacity as President of the United States…I want thank you for the leadership you have shown for your country and the world over eight years.

Thank you for the leadership and the friendship you have shown…The relationship will get stronger than ever but it has been immeasurably strengthened under your leadership and we thank you for it.”

Turnbull takes a goodbye selfie with his ideological brother, US President Barack Obama, at the 2016 APEC summit in Peru.

6. Praising Islamic Caliphates as “open societies”

In recent years, leftist pseudo-academics have begun promoting myths about Islamic civilisation to serve their contemporary political agenda. Leftist politicians, like Malcolm Turnbull and Barack Obama, have peddled these arguments to wear down popular resistance to Muslim mass immigration.

For instance, in March of 2016 Turnbull visited the taxpayer-funded Islamic Museum of Australia and made the following remarks:

“…the museum tells the story with which I’m familiar of the great heights of Islam in Spain and indeed in the Ottoman Empire, when the successful, the really successful, artistically brilliant, brilliant in every respect in terms of medicine, in terms of literature, I’m thinking of the Abbasid Caliphate, I’m thinking of the Umayyads in Spain. They were brilliant in large part because they were open societies.”

To refer to the Ottoman Empire, the Abbasid Caliphate, and the Umayyad Caliphate of Spain as “open societies” that were “brilliant in every respect” is either ignorance or deliberate deception.

Take the Umayyad Caliphate in Spain (aka. ‘Al-Andalus’) for instance.

According to primary sources like the Mozarabic Chronicle of 754, the Islamic conquest of Spain by the Umayyad governor Musa bin Nusayr in the early eighth century, involved destroying whole cities, starving populations, “butchering youths and infants“, and taking women as sex slaves. The central motivating factor for the invasion was their Islamic religion.

The invading Muslim armies generally gave the Visigothic Christian cities two options. If they resisted the Muslim takeover then all the men would be executed, the young women thrown into harems to be raped for the rest of their lives, and everyone else made slaves. If they submitted without resisting they would be allowed to continue living in a subjugated state of humiliation called ‘dhimmitude’. This included economically crippling taxation, land confiscation, social and legal inferiority, and severe restrictions on Christian religious practice. The punishment for defying the laws of dhimmitude was death, and the execution method of choice was crucifixion, as prescribed in the Qur’an.

According to Associate Professor Darío Fernández-Morera, author of the new book ‘The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise‘, if you compare the condition of Christians in Al-Andalus to the condition of blacks in the American South under ‘Jim Crow’ laws, the blacks were living under “infinitely better” conditions. Yet leftists will decry ‘Jim Crow’ laws but exalt Al-Andalus as a cosmopolitan, multicultural paradise.

According to Prof. Fernández-Morera, and his assessment of the primary sources, most Visigothic Churches were either demolished or converted to Mosques by the Umayyads, who appropriated Roman-Visigothic architectural styles (eg. the ‘horseshoe arch’). Only buildings that were architecturally and aesthetically inferior were allowed to be used as Churches. Building new Churches was banned, and it was illegal to repair decaying ones. Indeed, any public act or display of Christian worship was banned, and Christians were forced to wear special identifying clothing (a method later utilised by the Nazis).

Legally, Muslim men were able to marry Christian women but not vica versa. And Muslim men were not subject to the death penalty for murdering Christians, but Christians were for murdering Muslims, even in self defence. Attempts to convert Muslims were punished with death. Indeed, anything negative uttered against the Qur’an, Muhammad or any aspect of Islam was punished with death. No Christian could have authority over any Muslim, and Christians were forced to make gestures of subservience whenever a Muslim entered the room.

Slavery in Al-Andalus was rampant. Cordoba, the capital city of Al-Andalus, was a hub for the Mediterranean slave trade. Arabs showed a particular prejudice against black sub-Saharan Africans, who they enslaved in large numbers. In the 12th century Al-Maydani, famous for his Proverbs, wrote, “the African black, when hungry, steals; and when sated, he fornicates.”  The 14th century traveling Islamic scholar Ibn Battuta claimed that blacks were stupid, ignorant, cowardly, and infantile.

Muslim women were under all the standard Islamic restrictions we see today in a country like Saudi Arabia. They were restricted to the home for most of the day, subject to female genital mutilation, banned from formal schooling, and mandated to wear full body coverings. Islamic law in Spain allowed for a man to have up to four wives and as many sex slaves as he could deal with. The sex slaves were usually Christian women purchased in slave markets or captured in war.

A 1910 painting by Otto Pilny (1866-1936) depicting Muslim slave traders advertising their white Christian sex slaves to potential buyers.

Other prominent historians of Islamic Spain agree. The late Richard A. Fletcher, a former history Professor at the University of York, and author of the 1992 book ‘Moorish Spain’, said:

“Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch.”

The pre-eminent historian of Al-Andalus, Evariste Lévi-Provençal, observed:

“The Muslim Andalusian state appears from its earliest origins as the defender and champion of a jealous orthodoxy, more and more ossified in a blind respect for a rigid doctrine, suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of rational speculation.”

Conditions in the Abbasid Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire were of a similar nature.

7. Saying multiculturalism will combat terrorism

On the 23rd of March 2016 Turnbull gave a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, in which he made the following statement:

“Australia…is better placed than many of our European counterparts in dealing with the threat of terrorism because of the strength of our intelligence and security agencies, our secure borders and our successful multicultural society…”

Of course, the evidence suggests that multiculturalism is a cause of terrorism, not a solution.

Islamic terrorist attacks have increased as multiculturalism has became a more prominent component of government policy in European countries. Our multicultural experiment imports and exalts other cultures whilst denigrating our own, fostering exactly the disintegration, separatism and supremacism that can lead to terrorism.

This was an analysis shared by Poland’s Interior Minister following the terror attacks in Nice, France last year. Even the ‘progressive’ former British Prime Minister David Cameron said that:

“Many people born in Britain have little attachment to the country and that makes them vulnerable to radicalization.”

In her 2006 book ‘Londonistan’,  British journalist Melanie Phillips wrote:

“British society presented a moral and philosophical vacuum that was ripe for colonization by predatory Islamism…The British education system simply ceased transmitting either the values or the story of the nation to successive generations, delivering instead the message that truth was an illusion and that the nation and its values were whatever anyone wanted them to be.”


Back to Homepage


1. Tench, W. (1793). Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson. (ch. 8). London: Nicol and Sewell.

2. F. M. Bladen (ed.), “Governor King to Sir Joseph Banks. 5 June 1802.”, Historical Records of New South Wales, IV — HUNTER AND KING, p. 783

3. Sutherland, D. (1964). The French Revolution and Empire: The Quest for a Civic Order. (p. 222). Blackwell Publishing.

4. Loomis, S. (1964). Paris in the Terror. (p. 289). Philadelphia; New York: J.B. Lippincott Co.



7 times Malcolm Turnbull contradicted himself

17th January, 2017

1. Whether the opinion polls matter

In September 2015 Malcolm Turnbull, then Communications Minister, launched a coup d’état against Tony Abbott for the Prime Ministership. He justified the overthrow based on a long series of poor Newspoll results.

In October 2016 Newspoll revealed that Turnbull is now less popular than Tony Abbott was when the coup was launched, and in December 2016 Turnbull lost his sixth Newspoll in a row.

Showing extraordinary gumption, Turnbull now conveniently claims that the polls aren’t accurate, and therefore don’t matter:

“It’s a corny thing to say but the only poll that matters is on polling day and I have to say that in recent times the opinion polls have not proved a great indication of what finally happens,”

Note that if Turnbull’s new standard is that “the only poll that matters is on polling day” then he would have to conclude that Tony Abbott is a superior politician, because Tony Abbott won the 2013 election in a landslide, whereas Turnbull scraped over the line in 2016, saved by the National Party.

2. Whether politicians should intervene in the ABC & SBS

In an radio interview on the 29th of January 2014, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott responded to the ABC’s attacks on Royal Australian Navy personnel, and its left-wing bias more generally, saying:

“…a lot of people feel at the moment that the ABC instinctively takes everyone’s side but Australia’s… you shouldn’t leap to be critical of your own country and you certainly ought to be prepared to give the Australian Navy and its hardworking personnel the benefit of the doubt.”

Turnbull, despite being a cabinet minister and subject to cabinet solidarity, responded the following day via the Sydney Morning Herald, contradicting his leader:

“What’s the alternative? The [ABC] editor-in-chief becomes the Prime Minister? Politicians, whether Prime Ministers or Communications Ministers, will often be unhappy with the ABC … but you can’t tell them what to write.”

Well it seems that politicians can, in fact, tell government-owned broadcasters what to do, and there have since been at least two examples of Malcolm Turnbull doing exactly that.

The first occurred on ANZAC Day in April of 2015. An SBS reporter named Scott McIntyre posted a series ‘tweets’ attacking the ANZACs as war criminals, and crudely stereotyping those who mark the day. After pressure from Liberal MPs Turnbull – then Communications Minister and thus the minister responsible for both SBS and the ABC – publicly criticised the remarks, and made a late night phone call to SBS Managing Director Michael Ebeid. The reporter was sacked the following morning (26th April).

The second occurred in June 2015, following an episode of the ABC’s Q&A program in which a Muslim terrorist sympathiser (and former terror suspect) named Zaky Mallah was given a national platform. Turnbull phoned ABC Managing Director Mark Scott and Chairman Jim Spigelman to complain. Turnbull said the broadcaster had made a “very grave error of judgment”.

3. Whether he is a “libertarian”

In November 2010, speaking on a panel at the Woollahra Festival, Turnbull said:

“I use a lot of online media. The one I use the most is Twitter. I like that because it’s very immediate, and quite anarchic, and that appeals to me. I’m a libertarian after all.”

Just two years later though, in an interview with GQ magazine, he flip-flops saying:

“When you boil it down to your gut political philosophy — and all political parties will frustrate and disappoint from time to time — I wouldn’t say I’m a libertarian, I’m not one of those people, I’m not an anarchist…”

4. Whether terrorists are weak

In November of 2015 Turnbull said the Islamic terrorists are weak:

“By most measures, however, ISIL is in a fundamentally weak position. We must not be fooled by its hype. Its ideology is archaic, but its use of the Internet is very modern. ISIL has many more smartphones than guns, more twitter accounts than fighters. It does not command broad-based legitimacy even in those areas under its direct control.”

The very next month the Turnbull government floated cancelling the ANZAC Day ceremony at Lone Pine, for fear of a terrorist attack. They went through with the cancellation in February 2016. A compromise proposal was later agreed upon after a wave of criticism from the public and the Returned Services League (RSL).

5. Whether Malcolm Fraser was a good Prime Minister

In Turnbull’s 1988 book The Spycatcher Trial, he praises former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam as a “living legend” and “much-loved elder statesman” who “…compares so favourably to his drab successor, the Liberal Malcolm Fraser…”1. Turnbull thought Fraser was “the personification of conservatism”2, and despised him.

Following the death of Fraser in March 2015, Turnbull changed his tune, praising him as a “remarkable progressive liberal”.

It was only when Turnbull got to know Fraser in the lead up to the republic referendum in 1999, that he realised Fraser was, in fact, an ideological fellow traveler, and thus changed his view.

6. Whether Australia should be giving border control advice to other countries

In October 2015 Tony Abbott delivered the Second Annual Margaret Thatcther Lecture at Guildhall in London. He warned that European countries were making a “catastrophic error” in allowing massive migratory inflows, and that Australia’s successful border security policies should be studied. He said people who passed through many countries before seeking asylum were not genuine refugees, but rather were economic migrants.

Turnbull briefed the media against Abbott prior to his November 2015 meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is the prime facilitator of the massive migratory waves into Europe. At a press conference after the meeting Turnbull was questioned about Abbott’s prescriptions, and offered this rebuke:

“We had a very good discussion but I have no intention or desire to give advice on these matters to the German Chancellor. Each country faces very different circumstances, not least of which are geographic. I think this is a matter for the German Government as it is for the Australian Government to manage these challenges in their own way.”

Turnbull stunningly reversed his position after the March 2016 Islamist terrorist bombings in Brussels, Belgium, saying:

“I can assure Australians that our security system, our border protection, our domestic security arrangements, are much stronger than they are in Europe where regrettably they allowed security to slip… That weakness in European security is not unrelated to the problems they’ve been having in recent times.”

The Belgian Ambassador was offended:

7. Whether the republic is a ‘generational issue’

On the 18th of March 1992, Malcolm Turnbull gave a speech at the Canberra Press Club and said the following:

“My impression is that support for the monarchy, amongst thinking Australians, is almost entirely a generational issue. I think there are very few Australians, who think about the issue, who are under the age of 50, who do not support the republic.”

In May 2000 Turnbull presented a “republican certificate” to Mr Allen Joseph McKay, who had just turned 100 years old. McKay, a staunch republican since the 1930s, turned down the customary congratulatory telegram from the Queen and instead requested one from Malcolm Turnbull, who had just led the republican movement to defeat at the 1999 referendum. Turnbull said:

“It’s great, and it gives the lie to the suggestion that older Australians support the status quo.” 3



Back to Homepage


1. Turnbull, M. (1988). The Spycatcher Trial. (p. 149). London: Heinemann.

2. Turnbull, M. (1999). Fighting for the Republic. (p. 237). Australia: Hardie Grant Books.

3. 16. Banham, C. (2000, May 18). No, Ma’am: Joe shows a ton of republican spirit. Sydney Morning Herald, p. 2.


The Broken Promises of Malcolm Turnbull’s Challenge Speech

12th January, 2017

On the 14th of September 2015, Malcolm Turnbull publicly launched his challenge against Prime Minister Tony Abbott with a press conference.

His major points, including justifications for the coup and promises for his own Prime Ministership, were:

  1. Economic leadership
  2. Explain issues & foster understanding in electorate
  3. Respect the people’s intelligence
  4. No more slogans
  5. Abbott lost 30 Newspolls in a row
  6. Freedom, free enterprise & individual initiative
  7. Traditional cabinet government
  8. End to policy on the run
  9. End ‘captain’s calls’ & be consultative
  10. Open Government

In this article I will explain how every one of these has been contradicted by the Turnbull government.

1. Economic leadership

Gross federal government debt is now over 450 billion dollars and getting higher. The 2015-16 budget deficit was 39.6 billion dollars, which was 4.5 billion dollars higher than that planned by Tony Abbott.

Furthermore, over the current term the Turnbull government plans to increase gross debt by $152 billion. Gross debt will therefore rise from 28.6% of GDP to 31.4%, and the taxpayer will be paying 1.5 billion dollars in monthly interest, much of it to foreign creditors.

Shockingly, we now also have falling GDP.

2. Explain issues & foster understanding in electorate

The 2016 federal election saw the Liberal Party losing many votes as a result of misunderstandings about Medicare. Malcolm Turnbull was unable to explain to significant swathes of the electorate that the Coalition was not privatising Medicare, as the Labor Party was suggesting. Instead of blaming this failure on his own inability to explain the Coalition’s policies, he scapegoated Tony Abbott’s 2014 budget and a Labor SMS campaign.

Many votes were also lost based on Turnbull’s “innovation agenda”, and its accompanying campaign rhetoric (“agile”, “nimble” etc). Turnbull claimed that this “innovation agenda” would create jobs and improve the economy, but people didn’t buy it, and instead panicked about job security.

3. Respect people’s intelligence

At an October 2015 meeting of the NSW Liberal Party State Council, Turnbull got up, in front of television cameras, and stated that the Liberal Party was “not run by factions”. Such a blatant falsehood was this that it triggered a loud and mocking laughter among the crowd and, no doubt, from anyone even mildly knowledgeable about the notorious factionalism of the NSW Liberal Party.

4. No more slogans

In a March 2016 interview with Neil Mitchell on 3AW Turnbull explicitly acknowledged the need for slogans, contradicting his leadership challenge speech.

Neil Mitchell (3AW): “Another thing you promised was no slogans. Will there be no slogans in this election campaign?”

Turnbull: “Well, I’m generally criticised for talking at too much length, so I think, I think quite a few of my critics would prefer if there was a little bit, if just a few slogans would sneak in, rather than the lengthy explanations, yeah.”

Turnbull then proceeded to embrace several slogans, including the infamous “continuity and change“, as well as “jobs and growth”, which he used at least 152 times during the election campaign alone.

One of Turnbull’s slogans that long pre-dates his Prime Ministership is “We are the most successful multicultural nation in the world”. He used this at least 17 times during the election campaign.

Another of Turnbull’s slogans that pre-dates his Prime Ministership is the “exciting time” slogan, which he appears to have started using after the failed February 2015 leadership coup. In fact, this slogan was used in the very same leadership challenge speech that Turnbull used to criticise slogans, and their use by Tony Abbott.

5. Abbott Lost 30 Newspolls in a row

Turnbull stated that Tony Abbott’s 30 consecutive Newspoll losses were grounds for his overthrow, but Turnbull himself has now clearly lost 6 consecutive Newspolls, and his personal ratings are lower than Tony Abbott’s were as Prime Minister.

Turnbull though has now said that he won’t be held to his own benchmark, and claims that polling is not accurate.

6. Freedom, free enterprise & individual initiative

Turnbull has proposed increasing taxes on superannuation to such a level that the Coalition’s superannuation policy has been considered less liberal than Labor’s.

On freedom of speech, Turnbull has stubbornly refused to back changes to section 18 of the Racial Discrimination Act, despite repeated petitions from the public and Liberal backbenchers. The current Act outlaws ‘offending’ and ‘insulting’, and has resulted in several ridiculous and oppressive court cases.

On industrial relations, the Turnbull government has caved to achieve a purely symbolic, political victory on the revival of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The Australian newspaper’s economics commentator, Dr. Judith Sloan, says:

“The amendments to the ABCC bill are so bad that we would be better off without it.  The concessions are so anti-competitive and onerous that any net benefits that might have been secured are now in the parliamentary waste paper bin.”

7. Traditional cabinet government

In March 2016 it was reported that Turnbull was excluding his own Treasurer, Scott Morrison, from important decisions on the budget and election timing, causing the Treasurer embarrassment in media interviews.

The Australian newspaper’s Political Editor, Dennis Shanahan, wrote:

“No matter what Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison say, this is the quickest souring of a fresh partnership between prime minister and treasurer since at least World War II — before then hardly matters now.”

The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are supposed to be the two most prominent ministers of the government, far exceeding all other ministers. A good working relationship between Treasurer and Prime Minister is more important for a properly functioning government than any other ministerial relationship.

Soon after this episode it is revealed that Turnbull has a secret inner circle of confidants that excludes many cabinet ministers, but includes his wife Lucy.

8. End to policy on the run

In October 2015 Turnbull suddenly floated the idea of an increase to the GST. He sent Treasurer Scott Morrison out to argue the case for it, but soon ruled it out completely, pulling the rug out from under his Treasurer.

And then there was Turnbull’s proposal for state-based income taxes floated on the 30th of March 2016, and scrapped two days later.

9. End ‘captain’s calls’ & be consultative

In April 2016, Turnbull made a decision to rule out a Royal Commission into the banking sector without consulting the party room. He was criticised by Liberal backbencher Warren Entsch, who is usually a Turnbull supporter. Entsch called it a “captain’s call”.

10. Open government

Turnbull’s first act after overthrowing Tony Abbott for the Liberal leadership, was forging a secret agreement with the National Party. An updated version of that secret agreement was signed after the 2016 federal election.

In office, he has not changed the practice of previous Prime Ministers in denying the media access to his official diary, despite repeated FOI requests. The Information Commissioner recently ruled against Turnbull on the matter.

Turnbull has also continued the practice of governments keeping reports secret until a time that is convenient for them. For instance, the completed review of the census debacle was handed to Turnbull on the 14th of October 2016, but was kept secret for over a month, and quietly released with little media attention.

The Turnbull government has also had two secret carbon taxes. One of these has been in operation since July 2016, and another one, planned for the future, was recently outed by Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg.


Back to Homepage


A list of Malcolm Turnbull’s most blatant lies, falsehoods, deceits & distortions

Originally published on 12th January, 2017

*UPDATE [5th May, 2018]: Added 3 new items.

1. Saying the Liberal Party is not run by factions

At an October 2015 meeting of the NSW Liberal Party State Council, Turnbull said the Liberal Party is “not run by factions”. This triggered a mocking laughter among the crowd because the NSW Liberal Party is notoriously factionalised.

In the introduction to former Liberal Senator Peter Baume’s 2015 book “A Dissident Liberal“, it says the following:

“The Liberal Party has always sought to deny the existence of factions within the party because it is a key point of differentiation from the ALP…However, by the mid-1980s, groupings within the Liberal Party, both nationally and within some state branches, started to form that went beyond personality cliques…

At the NSW level, Baume was a member of the inner circle of the powerful faction known prosaically at the time as the Liberal Forum Group (‘the Group’), which coalesced into a political force in New South Wales in 1984. Baume was also a founding member of the Liberal Forum at the federal level…The Federal Liberal Forum, originally a clandestine group within the broad church of the larger Liberal Party, was officially formed in February 1985 and was irreverently named by its members the ‘Black Hand’.”

2. Saying he supported John Howard’s border protection policies

In a March 2016 interview on 3AW, Turnbull said:

“When I was Opposition Leader, before Tony became leader, I strongly opposed Rudd’s dismantling of the Howard policy. So whether it is Howard as leader of the Liberal Party, Abbott, or Turnbull, we’ve had the same policy on border protection. So this is not something that was invented by Tony Abbott, this has been a continuum.”

This is not true. Turnbull, as Opposition Leader in 2008-09, weakened the Coalition’s border protection rhetoric and refused to clarify whether the Howard policies would be re-introduced under a Turnbull government. Turnbull was explicitly and publicly criticised as having “gone soft” on the issue by the then Liberal backbencher, Bronwyn Bishop.

Furthermore, in October 2009 Turnbull rebuked Liberal backbencher Wilson Tuckey, who warned that terrorists could be entering the country disguised as refugees. Tuckey was later proven correct, with Muslim “refugees” involved in several terrorist attacks and planned attacks.

3. Saying he is a Catholic

After years of openly barracking for Labor, and financially supporting them, Turnbull changed tactics in late 2000, and started seeking Liberal pre-selection. This was his only means of becoming Prime Minister. It was inconceivable that he could win Labor pre-selection in a House of Representatives seat as a millionaire carpetbagger from blue-ribbon Liberal territory.

Turnbull feigned remorse over his previous anti-Liberal and anti-Howard comments1, but this wasn’t enough to secure pre-selection in the seat of Wentworth for the 2001 federal election. After failing to sabotage the campaign of the chosen Wentworth Liberal candidate,2,3,4 he took the deception up a notch.

He quit his position at Goldman Sachs, became deputy party treasurer, sucked up to John Howard, made donations to the party, and began acting like a social conservative, giving speeches on family values and declining birth rates. He then took it up another notch in claiming to have converted to Catholicism.5

Having safely secured the leadership in 2008, Turnbull openly pushed abortion and homosexuality, both of which are dogmatically condemned by the Catholic Church.

On abortion, Canon Law 1398 states that those who procure (i.e. obtain, persuade or cause) completed abortions are automatically excommunicated. On homosexuality, the Catechism clearly states that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the natural law“. It adds that “Under no circumstances can they be approved”.

Public words or actions that knowingly tolerate sin (or merely give that appearance), and hence tempt others to sin, are themselves a sin. This sin is called ‘scandal‘, and the Catechism states that it is a grave offence.

Jesus Christ himself was recorded in chapter 18 of the Book of Matthew commenting on the grave nature of causing scandal, especially to children, saying:

“…he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

4. Saying Senate voting reform was not on the agenda under Tony Abbott

In an interview on the ABC’s 7.30 program in March of 2016, Turnbull was asked how his government was different from that of Tony Abbott. He responded:

“Firstly, we dealt with Senate voting reform. That was not on the agenda and it’s done. It’s been voted in and done.”

Tony Abbott responded saying:

“False. My plan was to do it as the last measure the current parliament considered.”

Abbott’s claim was confirmed by senior frontbenchers on both sides of the House, and the matter was publicly reported in 2015.

5. Saying he’s a legal traditionalist

On the 4th of February 2016, during Question Time in the House of Representatives, Labor MP Terri Butler asked Turnbull whether he would scrap the non-binding homosexual “marriage” plebiscite and allow a free vote in parliament, as he had argued for (in defiance of cabinet solidarity) before the coup d’état against Tony Abbott.

Turnbull said the plebiscite was Coalition policy, but he personally supported a free vote in parliament. Of the plebiscite, he said:

“It is a new approach. It has not been a practice in the Australian political system other than in constitutional referendums…It is certainly not the approach that I favoured at the outset. I am a traditionalist. This was a case of democratic innovation. The innovator was out innovated! There you go!”

Firstly, non-binding plebiscites are not a novelty in Australia, as Turnbull asserts. In 1916 and 1917, during World War I, there were two non-binding plebiscites on conscription. There was also a non-binding plebiscite in 1977, to determine a national song to be played on non-regal occasions.

Furthermore, plebiscites are covered under section 7A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as a service the Australian Electoral Commission can provide.

Secondly, according to his record, Turnbull is most certainly not a legislative traditionalist. For instance, he was a vigorous supporter of the infamous leftist-‘progressive’ High Court judge Lionel Murphy (former Whitlam-Labor Attorney-General), who notoriously tried to legislate from the bench, bypassing parliament.

In his biography of Turnbull titled ‘Born to Rule’, journalist Paddy Manning writes:

“Turnbull commended Murphy for ‘dragging our law into the 20th century’, being willing to throw precedent out the window in reinterpreting the Australian Constitution…” 6

In October 2002 the then soon-to-be High Court Justice and future Royal Commissioner, Dyson Heydon, commented on Lionel Murphy’s approach to law, saying:

“…he treated judicial work as an act of uncontrolled personal will, and sneered at the doctrine of precedent…”

Furthermore, Turnbull has repeatedly attacked the Australian Constitution, calling it, or parts of it, variously a “total failure”7, “woefully undemocratic”7, “ill-conceived”7, “anachronistic”7, “drab and misleading“, “frustrating“, and an “error” on the part of the founding fathers.

6. Saying he was a battler growing up

This has been thoroughly covered in my previous article titled ‘‘Battler’ Turnbull’s family income in the 1950s was 7 times the average.’

7. Saying he and his clique didn’t undermine Brendan Nelson

In an interview on Channel 9’s ‘A Current Affair‘ program immediately after his overthrow of Brendan Nelson on the 16th of September 2008, Turnbull was asked the following question by host Tracy Grimshaw:

“…you and your supporters have been the key destabilisers of Brendan Nelson these past 10 months haven’t you?”

He replied:

“That is completely untrue. That is absolutely untrue.”

On the other hand, former Treasurer Peter Costello said:

“Turnbull’s supporters were ruthless in tearing down Nelson. Weakened by this campaign and suffering poor polls, Nelson called another ballot. Turnbull won by four votes. In total, only three votes moved. It was an ominous sign. He got there, but not by building support among his colleagues.”

8. Saying the indigenous procurement policy was his

On the 17th November 2016 Turnbull gave a speech to a meeting of the Business Council of Australia. In that speech he lies, saying that the Coalition’s indigenous procurement policy was a “great initiative of my government”. That policy was actually initiated under Tony Abbott, and had been launched on the 1st of July 2015, over two months before Turnbull’s coup against Abbott.

9. Saying that his immigration policy is based on economic need

On the 11th of December 2017 Turnbull appeared on the ABC’s Q&A program and was asked why he was allowing approximately 200,000 people per year to permanently immigrate to Australia. His answer was as follows:

“Our immigration program is overwhelmingly skills-based, so it is driven by the demands in our economy. So, as you have more demand for people with the skills that we need in our economy then you’ll get more immigration…”

Immigration expert Dr Bob Birrell, President of the Australian Population Research Institute, has written a 17-page study that contradicts Turnbull. In an appearance on Sky News, Birrell said:

“What’s happened with the skilled program is that over the past 6 years it’s been radically changed. Six years ago one of the criterion was that you had to have an occupation that was in short supply in Australia. That rule has now been abolished. There is no requirement anymore that you have to have scarce skills to be selected in the skilled migration program.”








Back to Homepage


1. Gordon, M. (2000, Dec 22). Turnbull Returns to the Liberal Fold. The Age.

2. Price, M. (2001, Jul 18). Libs dismiss jaunt MP’s seat loss. The Australian.

3. Nason, D. (2001, Sep 05). Liberals hose down Turnbull ambition. The Australian.

4. Humphries, D & Robinson, M. (2001, Sep 05). Liberals try to quash rumours of Wentworth climb for top republican. Sydney Morning Herald.

5. Lawson, V. (2002, Aug 17). Power pair turn heads to prayer. Sydney Morning Herald.

6. Manning, P. (2015). Born to Rule: The unauthorised biography of Malcolm Turnbull. (ch. 2). Melbourne University Press.

7. Turnbull, M. (1975, Oct 24). The Constitution: A democratic failure.Nation Review, p. 38.


Is Turnbull scheming to pass so-called “gay marriage”?

25th October, 2016

Conservatives are in danger of being lulled into a state of complacency, given the current state of affairs in Canberra.

Following the federal election in July, in which heavy losses were incurred upon the Liberal Party, Turnbull would appear to be ‘on the leash’.

But don’t be deceived.

We still have the clandestine carbon dioxide tax organised by the Turnbullites. We are still making no substantial progress on debt and deficit. And we still have Turnbull obstinately refusing to rule out a parliamentary vote on homosexual pseudo-marriage, and saying he is willing to negotiate.

The latter indicates that Turnbull is scheming, behind-the-scenes, for a free parliamentary vote on the marriage issue. This is a vote he knows he could win given the parliamentary numbers are now more favourable. What though, might such a scheme look like?

We ought to recall his first run as Liberal leader in 2008-09, in which he connived with the then Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, to steamroll backbench conservatives, and pass an economy-crippling Emissions Trading Scheme. Indeed, not only did he want the legislation passed, he pushed hard to get it done before the global conference in Copenhagen, so the Australian people could be exploited to serve the interests of securing a global treaty.

Could Turnbull again be scheming with Labor in such a manner?

One possibility could be a proposal to prevent a credit rating downgrade, such that Labor agrees to pass ‘substantial’ budget savings measures through the Senate in exchange for a free parliamentary vote on so-called “gay marriage”. This deal would be heavily promoted among Turnbull’s ideological allies in the leftist media who would frame it in such a way as to demonise conservatives.

If conservative backbenchers oppose the deal they will be presented as pathologically obsessive about the supposedly “inconsequential” social issues, to the point of being hindrances to the “more practical” and urgent matter of budget repair and economic reform. Should conservatives succeed in stifling the deal, they will then be blamed for any subsequent downgrade in Australia’s credit rating, and for the resulting debt spiral.

On the other hand, Turnbull and Shorten would be made to look like heroes, achieving productive compromise in a difficult parliament.

Such a scenario has been made possible by the foolish tactic employed by many conservatives, over many years, of presenting the marriage issue as a “third order” issue that should be put at the back of the line. The truth is that marriage is a civilisational bedrock of equal or greater importance than any other issue, and that truth has been undermined by the aforementioned tactic.

Schemes such as that I have described above must be anticipated and pre-emptively eradicated, before they see the light of day. Turnbull though, sagging in the polls, unlikely to win the next election, and desperate to leave a lasting legacy that will ensure everlasting popularity among his ideological brethren, may be willing to martyr his leadership over the issue, and go out in a blaze of leftist glory.


Back to Homepage

6 times Malcolm Turnbull has explicitly attacked the Liberal Party

21st October, 2016

If I told you there was a sitting member of federal parliament who had, over the years, variously referred to the Liberal Party and its members as “political fascists”, “unintelligent”, “cavemen” and “geriatrics”, who would you guess that member might be?

Tanya Plibersek? Sarah Hanson-Young? Adam Bandt? Wrong. It was the current leader of the Liberal Party, and Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.

Below I have listed 6 examples of Malcolm Turnbull explicitly attacking the whole Liberal Party. There are, of course, countless more examples of him publicly attacking the party’s policies and individual party members, as well as making large donations to the Labor Party, but they are covered elsewhere on this website.

1. Saying Liberal Party members are “geriatrics” & “a joke”

On the 8th of August 1993 the Sunday Age published derogatory comments made by Turnbull, about Liberal Party members. Turnbull is quoted saying:

“The party is largely composed of geriatrics. They’ve become a joke…The ALP is much better educated these days than the Liberals.”

He further added:

“Politics is increasingly about management, people and vision. This is where the Libs fail. Keating has a vision of an independent Australia carving itself an identity.”


2. Saying the Liberal Party is “finished” in 1994

In August of 1994 there was speculation that Turnbull was scheming to form a new party to take seats from the Liberal Party, in order to co-operate with Labor on the republic and shut out conservatives.

The following month, the then Democrats Senator and future Labor MP Cheryl Kernot confirmed that Malcolm Turnbull had discussed with her the possibility of forming a new party together that would split the Liberal Party. Turnbull followed up with a public attack on the party, saying:

“…our political system needs a viable opposition and we don’t have one at the moment…. The Liberal Party, as currently structured, is basically finished at a federal level…. The reason there is not more activity to form a new party is that the business community is basically comfortable with the present [Labor] Government.”

Turnbull’s prediction is proven severely erroneous when, less than 18 months later, the Liberal-National coalition wins a federal election in a landslide, and goes on to govern for nearly 12 years.

3. Saying Liberal Party MPs don’t read, & lack intelligence

On the 29th of July 1993, the Australian Financial Review reported Turnbull making abusive comments about the Liberal Party and threatening to use his Australian Republican Movement to swing elections against them if they maintained their support for constitutional monarchism. Turnbull is quoted saying:

“A lot of the parliamentary Liberal Party suffer from a pretty profound lack of intellectual depth…Most Liberal politicians, even those who’ve been to universities, seem to have avoided reading and absorbing any books – there aren’t even any distinguished lawyers in the parliamentary party.”

Turnbull also praised Labor, saying Keating was showing leadership on the republic issue, and that the republican debate was a choice between “an intelligent and an unintelligent party”. He added that:

“The Liberals are going to go into the next election clutching coronation tea cosies, thinking they’ll win…There is a price for supporting the monarchy, and that’s the price of electoral pain.”

Many people, including Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, respond saying Turnbull is a Labor partisan who is only interested in ramming through the Keating agenda.


4. Saying the Liberal Party adheres to “caveman conservatism”

In March of 1992, Turnbull and the Keating-Labor government launched a public attack on the Liberal Party and National Party for opposing a republic. In a speech at the National Press Club in Canberra, Turnbull attacked opposition to the republic as “caveman conservatism“, and specifically targeted John Howard.

For Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating though, he had nothing but praise, saying:

“Frankly, I am awestruck by Keating’s courage… Keating is the first mainstream politician to even put his toe into this particular pool, and he should be congratulated for his courage.”

5. Calling the Liberal Party “political fascists”

In October 1975, the Whitlam-Labor government was collapsing, and bringing Australia with it, over the Khemlani loans affair and other pernicious activities. The public wanted Whitlam gone, but he refused to call an election, so the Liberal-National coalition blocked monetary supply using their numbers in the Senate, to try and force an election.

Meanwhile, Malcolm Turnbull was writing for the left-wing newspaper, The Nation Review, and supporting Whitlam. In his October 24th article, he went on the attack against the Liberal Party, saying they:

“… may well be economic conservatives but in their desperate attempt to seize power they have proved themselves to be nothing more than political fascists.” 1

A couple of weeks later Gough Whitlam was sacked by the Governor-General, and an election was immediately called. Labor lost 30 seats, and the Liberal-National coalition won the largest majority in Australian history.

6. Calling the Liberal government anti-progress

Turnbull’s attacks on the Liberal Party extend back to his youth. In July of 1971 the 16-year-old Turnbull attacked the Liberal Party in a piece for the Sydney Grammar School newsletter, The Sydneian.

He said the party was full of “men averse to change of any sort – men whose interests lie solely in the system as it is”. The Liberal approach, he said, was “hardly the material needed for a progressive government, which is what Australia as a nation needs above all else”, as he called for higher taxes on the rich. “Twenty years have seen many changes in Australia and the world, but few in the Liberal Party,” he added.

Steve Kilbey, a school debating champion who battled with Turnbull in 1971, remembers him as a “huge, huge Labor man” and a “staunch lefty“.


Back to Homepage


1. Turnbull, M. (1975, Oct 24). The Constitution: A democratic failure. Nation Review, p. 38.



6 times Malcolm Turnbull has insulted our Defence Forces

18th October, 2016

1. Not attending a repatriation ceremony for fallen servicemen

In June of 2016, during the federal election campaign, both Turnbull and Bill Shorten failed to attend a repatriation ceremony for 33 of Australia’s fallen Vietnam servicemen at Richmond RAAF Base in NSW.

Turnbull was instead campaigning at a Sydney business that sells luxury mattresses, just 47km away. Shorten was at a fish market.

Furthermore, Turnbull did not invite Tony Abbott to attend in his stead, even though it was Abbott who, as Prime Minister, organised the repatriation.

Later, in August, both Turnbull and Shorten attended a ‘welcome home’ event for Australia’s Olympians. Warren Mundine made an important observation about Turnbull’s (and Shorten’s) priorities:

2. Not attending WW1 100th anniversary commemorations

In July of 2016 Malcolm Turnbull did not attend 100th anniversary commemorations of the first and most deadly battles involving Australians on the Western Front during World War One.

The Australian newspaper called him a “disgrace” with Associate Editor Cameron Stewart writing:

“This was not just another war commemoration, it was the biggest anniversary of the worst part of the most devastating war Australia has been involved in. Yet the Prime Minister chose not to prioritise his schedule to pay his respects on these battlefields to the 46,000 soldiers who gave their lives on the Western Front.”

3. Abolishing the Lone Pine ANZAC Day Ceremony

In February 2016 it was revealed that the Turnbull Government had abolished the ANZAC Day ceremony at Lone Pine, absurdly citing ‘rough terrain’ in the area. After pressure from the Returned Services League (RSL) and, of all people, Bill Shorten, a compromise was agreed upon.

4. Pushing for a change to the Australian flag

Turnbull has been a longtime opponent of our flag, under which so many have suffered and fallen in war.

In November 1988 he became a director of AusFlag, an organisation dedicated to radically changing the Australian flag.

In the early 1990s he praised Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating’s campaign against the flag, and publicly agitated for a change, including op-ed pieces in The Australian and Canberra Times newspapers.

At that time, Tony Abbott identified the push to change the flag, and make Australia a republic, as part of a nefarious ideological agenda:

“[George] Winterton’s flippant remark that Malcolm Turnbull might be Australia’s first President, is very revealing about the Turnbull committee’s dynamics… [Turnbull] displays a bully streak when crossed ― and his threats to the parliamentary seats of Liberal (but not Labor) monarchists have made him look like a Keating stooge.…many republicans don’t want to celebrate our identity ― but to change it ― and the dump-the-Queen-change-the-flag push is just the latest expression of the “black armband” view of Australian history, that we are an illegitimate nation redeemable only by up-rooting our past.”

Turnbull continued to campaign for changing the flag, with his investment banking company, Turnbull and Partners, sponsoring an exhibition of alternative national flag designs in 1996.1

Amidst his quest for Liberal pre-selection in 2004, when conservatives had greater influence over the party, Turnbull claimed to have changed his view on the flag. Ausflag executive director Harold Scruby commented on Turnbull’s sudden, seeming change:

“This man is Australia′s consummate chameleon. It brings to mind the saying that politics is like rowing, because you can face one way and go the other. Ausflag is awarding Malcolm Turnbull Olympic gold in single political sculling.”

His level of deceit in this matter can, I think, be garnered from his recent choice of art for his parliamentary offices. One work depicts an ‘aboriginal’ flag flying alone, without an Australian flag, over Old Parliament House.

This artwork, showing an ‘aboriginal flag’ flying over Old Parliament House, is hanging in Malcolm Turnbull’s parliamentary office.

5. Defended the ABC amidst its attacks on Navy personnel

In January 2014 the ABC launched an attack on Royal Australian Navy personnel, airing outlandish “torture” allegations from unauthorised boat immigrants. These allegations were soon discredited.

In an interview on Sydney radio, on the 30th of January, the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott responded saying:

“…a lot of people feel at the moment that the ABC instinctively takes everyone’s side but Australia’s… you shouldn’t leap to be critical of your own country and you certainly ought to be prepared to give the Australian Navy and its hardworking personnel the benefit of the doubt.”

The Defence Minister, David Johnston, was more explicit, saying:

“My people have been spat on, abused, treated like servants and have endured all of that to save more than a thousand lives. And yet they’ve also had to endure the horror of fishing out hundreds of people floating, dead in the water…I am absolutely sick to the stomach that this Australian iconic news agency would attack the Navy in the way that it has.

Nevertheless, that very evening, Turnbull was on the ABC’s 7.30 program publicly praising ABC Managing Director Mark Scott, who presided over the largest and most left-biased incarnation of the ABC in history. Turnbull said:

“Mark Scott is an outstanding executive and I have great confidence in him.”

Further, Turnbull needles the ABC’s critics by saying the following, with regard to the ABC’s accountability:

“What’s the alternative … the editor-in-chief [of the ABC] becomes the Prime Minister?’… Politicians, whether Prime Ministers or Communications Ministers, will often be unhappy with the ABC … but you can’t tell them what to write.”

Turnbull later proves himself wrong by intervening (following public pressure) in the Zaky Mallah ABC case, as well as the Scott McIntyre SBS case.

6. Inexperienced ministerial appointments

In a February 2016 article in The Australian newspaper, Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan explains Turnbull’s lack of respect for the Defence portfolio:

“The big loser in the latest ministerial reshuffle was the defence portfolio. It has consistently been the loser in the five months of the Turnbull government…every single junior minister and assistant minister in the defence portfolio is new and inexperienced.”


Back to Homepage


1. Steketee, M. (2004, Aug 20). Turnbull stars in double-cross on flag. The Australian.



Turnbull’s mentor is behind the greyhound ban

13th July, 2016

One of Malcolm Turnbull’s mentors, former High Court judge Michael McHugh, is behind the NSW state government’s Special Commission of Inquiry that effectively recommended a ban on greyhound racing.

The Baird Government announced McHugh as Commissioner in March of 2015, and he reported back in June this year. McHugh claimed that “the NSW Greyhound Racing Industry has fundamental animal welfare issues, integrity and governance failings that can not be remedied.”

This conclusion has since been thoroughly discredited, and McHugh has even backtracked on one of his claims.

McHugh is a radical leftist, and admits as much. He once told students at Sydney University:

“My own social views are probably as radical as anyone in this room – maybe more so.”

Michael McHugh

McHugh’s wife Jeannette was a federal Labor MP and is now the Chair of the Jessie Street Trust, an organisation that celebrates the Stalin-loving communist and former Labor candidate, Jessie Street.

In his 1988 book titled ‘The Spycatcher Trial’ Turnbull discusses McHugh’s involvement in the Spycatcher case as a judge on the NSW Court of Appeal alongside Lawrence Street (son of the aforementioned communist, Jessie Street) and Michael Kirby (future High Court judge and homosexual activist). On page 89 of the book, Turnbull refers to all three men as “something of mentors” (pictured below).

turnbull-mchughTurnbull was a lawyer in the Spycatcher case and recounts his fear that the absence of McHugh during one part of the trial would mean the possibility of a conservative replacement who would not be sympathetic to his cause.

From page 164 of ‘The Spycatcher Trial’, a book authored by Malcolm Turnbull.

McHugh’s report is the basis of the NSW state Liberal government’s plan to ban greyhound racing in NSW, and he certainly has some ideological fellow-travelers in that government.

For instance, the government has recently appointed former ABC Managing Director Mark Scott as Secretary of the NSW Department of Education despite Scott presiding over the most left-biased, anti-Liberal incarnation of the ABC in history.

Further, the government also supports the infamous ‘Safe Schools’ program, which is linked to communist and pro-paedophilia academics. NSW MLC Fred Nile, a long-time campaigner against paedophilia, recently withdrew his support for the Baird government over the issue.


Back to Homepage

‘Battler’ Turnbull’s family income in the 1950s was 7 times the average

16th June, 2016

Malcolm Turnbull recently posted an emotional video on his Facebook page, outlining his “battler” upbringing. In the video Turnbull says:

“Most of my childhood I spent with my dad. He was a single father, and we lived together – two guys – big brother and little brother really was the type of relationship. We were incredibly close. We didn’t have much money. He was a hotel broker and for most of that time he was battling like a lot of people are, a lot of single parents are, certainly.”

But does this video provide an accurate picture of Turnbull’s childhood? To answer that question, let’s take a more detailed look at Malcolm’s family history.

Prior to meeting Malcolm’s father, his mother, Coral Lansbury, was married to wealthy ABC radio producer George H. Edwards (40 years her senior). In August 1953 Edwards died, just six months into their marriage. They had been living in a luxury harbourside apartment in Sydney, at 14 Longworth Avenue, Point Piper, directly adjacent to the secluded Lady Martin’s Beach and Felix Bay.

Edwards also owned two other luxury apartments in the same building, and left behind an estate worth £32,766. Income from the estate was to be divided three ways, between his two daughters from a previous marriage, and Coral, provided she didn’t remarry.

To give you an idea of how much £32,766 was worth in 1953, it was a time when average weekly earnings (before tax) were roughly £16, members of parliament had an annual salary of £1375, and you could buy a new two-bedroom house on a quarter-acre block in the growing suburbs of Melbourne or Sydney for about £2,500.

At this time Turnbull’s mother was already a well-known radio playwright and actress, with her works appearing on the ABC, 2UW, and other stations. In the pre-television era, these radio programs were popular, and she would’ve been making a very good living, a large chunk of which was coming from the taxpayer-funded ABC. This was, of course, in addition to the income she was now receiving from the Edwards estate, which was also accumulated on the back of the taxpayer, via the ABC.

Coral continued to live in the luxury Longworth Avenue apartment after Edwards died, and in the summer of 1953-54 found herself staring out the window at a strapping life-saver doing laps along the beach. That man was Bruce Turnbull, a real estate agent who also lived in an apartment on Longworth Avenue. They met on the beach, and Malcolm was conceived very soon after.

Malcolm Turnbull’s parents met here, at Lady Martin’s Beach, in the summer of 1953-54.

Malcolm was born on the 24th of October, 1954, but Coral and Bruce were still unmarried. Of course, had they married Coral would’ve forfeited her interest in George Edwards’ estate.

With Malcolm born, Coral would now front court seeking a lump sum pay-out from the estate. Her solicitor in the matter was her close friend, and future NSW Labor Premier, Neville Wran.

In November 1954, the trustees of George Edwards’ estate advertised the three luxury apartments for auction (see below), and Coral was able to secure a pay-out of £3,100, relinquishing any further interest in the estate.

Advertisement from the Sydney Morning Herald (6th November, 1954, pg. 26).

Coral, Bruce and baby Malcolm then moved into a “luxury house” in Roseville, according to a December 1954 article in the Sydney Truth newspaper. The article also reported that Coral and Bruce were married, and that Malcolm was premature, but this wasn’t true. In fact, they didn’t marry until the following December, 12 months later, according to NSW state government marriage records.

They soon purchased and settled in an apartment at 119 New South Head Road, Vaucluse (pictured below), with views across Sydney Harbour. It was a downgrade from the Edwards apartment in Point Piper, but it was still very good. Today these apartments are worth around $1 million dollars each.

Block of four apartments at 119 New South Head Rd, Vaucluse.
The view from 119 New South Head Rd, Vaucluse.

Here in Vaucluse Coral churned out the scripts, and her income grew rapidly, much of it from the ABC. In March 1957 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Coral’s income alone was £5,000 per year, when the average taxable Australian income was roughly £753 per year. This was noteworthy because, at the time, the majority of women were focused on raising children and home duties.

Article from the Sydney Morning Herald (14 March, 1957).

If you add Malcolm’s father’s wage into the equation, young Malcolm was living in a household with a gross income over 7 times higher than that of the average Australian.

At the beginning of 1963, aged 8 years, Malcolm was sent to board at Sydney Grammar’s preparatory school in St Ives, 20km north of the Sydney CBD. In the same year, Coral transitioned into academia. She was appointed a lecturer at the University of NSW School of History, where she specialised in trade union history (especially the AWU) and English literature.

It was at the University of NSW that Coral began an affair with Professor John Salmon, and left Bruce. The Vaucluse house was sold, and in 1964 Bruce rented a new apartment at 13 Gladswood Gardens, Double Bay (pictured below), right on the harbour. Malcolm would stay at this apartment when he was home from boarding at Sydney Grammar.

Block of apartments @ 13 Gladswood Gardens, Double Bay.
The view from the Gladswood Gardens apartment block.

It is unknown to me how the assets of the marriage were divided, but Malcolm says he and his father went through “financial hardship” and were “battling” at this time, which is very difficult to believe. What happened to all the money? Who paid for Malcolm’s continued attendance at one of the most prestigious schools in the country? Was there a trust fund? What was Bruce’s income at this time?

These questions haven’t been answered.

In 1970, when Malcolm was 15, Bruce moved into a luxury three-bedroom apartment at 7 Longworth Avenue, Point Piper, with spectacular views of the harbour (pictured below). Today the apartment is worth $3-4 million.

This was the same area Bruce had met Coral 16 years before, and he was now happily remarried to an air hostess named Judith Norma Womersley. Malcolm has said of Judith that she was “a very warm woman, nice woman…I had a very good relationship with her“, and Turnbull’s biographer, Paddy Manning, says this luxury apartment was Malcolm’s base for most of the next decade.

Luxury apartment block @ 7 Longworth Avenue, Point Piper.
The view from 1/7 Longworth Avenue, Point Piper.

Bruce expanded his wealth via the real estate business, and when he died in a plane crash in 1982, the then 28-year-old Malcolm inherited an estate worth approximately $7 million in today’s dollars.

Today Malcolm lives in a $50 million mansion just a few doors down from the apartment at 7 Longworth Avenue, and just two doors down from the apartment his mother lived in when she met his father, at 14 Longworth Avenue.

Malcolm Turnbull’s mansion @ 46 Wunulla Rd, Point Piper.

Clearly, Malcolm was never deprived of material wealth, but he was deprived of something far more important… a maternal mother. What he had instead was a “liberated” atheist-feminist who would send him off to kindergarten all day while she worked on her scripts and made her riches.

Malcolm though, continues to support feminist ideology and policies of the kind enunciated and practiced by the mother who abandoned him. He has imbibed the ideology of his oppression, thus the oppressed has become the oppressor.


Back to Homepage

Red Alert on Turnbull’s ‘Smart Cities’ Public Transport Agenda

19th April, 2016

Malcolm Turnbull’s perceived dithering and incompetence is creating a dangerous complacency amongst conservatives whilst, in the background, he cunningly prepares a budget that will push forward the green-left agenda, and strike at the heart of Australia’s living standards and cultural heritage.Having studied Turnbull in great detail, two invariables stand out:

  1. He has always wanted to be Prime Minister
  2. He is always scheming

Particular attention must be paid to Turnbull’s so-called “better cities” policy. He intends this to be the centrepiece of his Prime Ministership, and is using it to distinguish himself from Tony Abbott.

When Turnbull became Prime Minister, he immediately appointed a dedicated Minister for Cities, Jamie Briggs. In announcing the new ministry Turnbull cited some vague need for “liveable, vibrant cities“, but Australian Financial Review journalist Michael Bleby revealed the true nature of the agenda:

“It will be up to Briggs… to make high density urban living an attractive enough alternative to put an end to the equally romantic attachment to the suburban block.”

Turnbull has long admitted his preference for high-density urban living (for the plebs, that is). In a 2013 speech to the Grattan Institute he said:

“The truth is that density is not the problem, density is the solution… We’ve got to recognise that we have to make it easier to build new dwelling units.”

These statements though, don’t reveal the half of it.

The End Game of “Cities” Policies

Much like the Marxists of yesteryear, the modern, elitist green-left (often misnomerically known as ‘progressives’) want to ‘scientifically’ micromanage every aspect of human life.

Their long-planned method of achieving this involves:

  • Bottling populations up into strictly circumscribed, densely-populated high-rise cities.
  • Connecting these cities via high-speed rail.
  • Depopulating rural and outer suburban areas, which will be ‘returned to wilderness’ (i.e. national parks that are off-limits to the general public).
  • Using modern technology to exercise what would ultimately be comprehensive control.


Baby steps are taken in a variety of seemingly distinct policy areas to achieve this, with each step presented to the public in isolation, and fraudulent justifications (e.g. climate change) provided. This tactic has been successful in preventing the general public from cottoning onto the fact that all of these seemingly separate and distinct policies are working together to change society for one ultimate ideological purpose.

If you look hard enough you’ll see that these plans are, to a significant degree, publicly admitted. For instance, in 2013, the British BBC presented “The city of 2050” complete with ubiquitous sensor and surveillance networks, high-rise mini-apartment living, and skies full of drones. Of course, outlets like the BBC, and our own ABC, which are controlled by the left, present this future in a positive light.

Several experimental versions of these so-called “smart cities” are already being built. The two most prominent are ‘Masdar City‘ in the United Arab Emirates, and ‘Songdo International Business District’ in South Korea. The Hawke Labor government even planned one for Australia in the late 1980s known as ‘The Multi Function Polis‘. Thankfully it was abandoned by the Howard Government in 1998, but steps to transform all of Australia’s capital cities into “smart cities” continue unabated, particularly under the guise of combating “climate change”.

You might notice that primordial versions of many of the crucial components of these future slave cities are already in existence, and are often prefixed with the word “smart”. There are “Smart Phones”, “Smart Meters”, “Smart Appliances”, “Smart Cars” etc. Other buzzwords and slogans used to push this agenda include “vertical communities”, “urban agglomeration”, “sustainability “, “amenity”, “walkable density”, “infill development”, “smart growth”, “innovation”, “efficiency”, “human capital”, “internet of things” and many more. Pejoratives like “urban sprawl” and “McMansions” are used to demonise the traditional stand-alone house on a quarter-acre block.

Policies of both state and federal governments work symbiotically with large corporations, large labor unions, and other NGOs to progress the agenda. Sectors of the economy that are difficult to centrally control, like small and medium-sized businesses, are considered a threat, and policies are formulated to destroy them, often in the guise of “helping workers” or “consumer rights”.

What are the fraudulent justifications for “smart cities” policy?

Traffic Congestion – Green-leftists claim that building more roads causes more traffic congestion, which is an astonishing statement. With that kind of ‘logic’ it’s a wonder they can support the NBN, because apparently creating more bandwidth won’t improve download/upload speeds.

If you build enough roads you will, of course, eventually eliminate congestion and make it easier to live a traditional Australian quarter-acre block or rural lifestyle. In the first instance though, congestion may only be temporarily alleviated because, as traffic flows improve, people currently avoiding cars will make the switch.

For instance, someone living in a tiny, urban high-rise apartment and commuting short distances to work via public transport, may decide they can now move out into a leafy suburb and commute to work via their very own privately-owned car.

The green-left (i.e. Turnbullites/Labor/Greens) want the pressures to be in precisely the opposite direction. They neglect new freeway funding thus causing congestion to the point of insanity. This squeezes people into deciding to move into urban apartments, so they can commute short distances to work via government-controlled public transport. This lifestyle will become more appealing as cars are increasingly forced out of cities, giving trams free reign.

Housing Affordability – Turnbull wants more urban apartments built to deal with housing affordability, but doesn’t indicate a willingness to do anything about overpriced housing on the suburban fringes. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, the housing affordability crisis is a result of the restrictive planning policies of state governments and local councils, which artificially raise land prices. It’s basic supply and demand.

Economists are already predicting a glut of inner-city urban apartments that will drastically reduce prices. The number of approvals for new apartments in Australia is now equal to the number of approvals for new stand-alone homes. Just five years ago apartment approvals were half that of stand-alone homes. Further, most new jobs are within 10km of the centre of the major cities.

If outer suburban and rural prices remain high, and car-based road infrastructure is further neglected (eg; Victorian Labor refusing to build East-West Link), the result will be a gradual and seemingly organic migration into inner-city apartments, especially by young people. Indeed, it is already happening.

Urban Decay/Blight/Rot – Urban decay is overemphasised in order to justify pumping inordinate amounts of money into cities, and little or nothing into rural areas. The recent example of North Queensland is classic. The north is responsible for billions in tax receipts, but gets little or nothing back for infrastructure projects. Money is effectively redistributed from the rural and regional areas of Queensland, into urban rail and other projects in Brisbane.

Crime – Urban crime is largely the result of increasingly lax policing methods, and mass immigration from countries with cultures that are incompatible with Australia.

The particulars of Turnbull’s push forward

Two major points have thus far emerged regarding how Turnbull will push forward this agenda via what now appears to be a budget that largely shuts out Treasurer Scott Morrison.

  1. Increases in federal funding for urban rail projects & organising ‘value capture’

The “smart cities” the left are working towards do not involve privately-owned vehicles. All transport is centrally-controlled by a technocratic oligarchy and overwhelmingly involves light rail and small, driverless “smart cars”.

Driverless cars are a key component of the ‘smart cities’ agenda. Photo: Michael Schick

This totalitarian vision was rejected by Tony Abbott, who instead funded freeways and highways for private cars. In his 2009 book Battlelines, Abbott eloquently articulates his (thoroughly liberal) reasoning:

“In Australia’s big cities, public transport is generally slow, expensive, not especially reliable and still a hideous drain on the public purse…People who can afford to live in the inner city or on a train line…often puzzle over others’ attachment to their own car and passion to drive. They underestimate the sense of mastery that many people gain from their car. The humblest person is king in his own car. Drivers choose the destination, the route, the time of departure, the music that’s played and whether to have company. Women, especially, tend to value the sense of security that a car can give. For people whose lives otherwise run largely at the beck and call of others, that’s no small freedom. It should not be underestimated or sneered at by senior policy makers who are more accustomed to getting their own way.” [pg. 173-174]

Turnbull and his leftist media allies call the Abbott policy ‘ideological’, which is a classic tactic of the left. When a liberal/conservative is implementing liberal/conservative policy, then they label it as ‘ideological’, but when a leftist/‘progressive’ is implementing leftist/‘progressive’ policy, then it is labelled ‘pragmatic’ and ‘science-based’. They are able to get away with this lie because the left have largely wrestled control of academia, and a facade of neutrality can be applied to what is thoroughly ideological.

Note also that in denouncing the Abbott policy as ‘ideological’ Turnbull is outing himself as not only a non-conservative, but also a non-liberal. The leftist media though, will continue to run the deceptive line that Turnbull and his allies are liberal and Abbott is conservative.

Ominously, Turnbull has indicated a willingness to borrow billions of extra dollars to implement this policy, and there are suggestions by his leftist media allies that he will attempt to place these borrowings ‘off-budget‘ (by fraudulently claiming they are sound investments rather than spending). This is precisely the deceptive accounting method that was used with the white elephant NBN, a Labor disaster that Turnbull failed to remedy as Communications Minister.

Turnbull has also canvassed the use of ‘value capture’, where the rights to future land tax revenues are securitised and sold to investors to raise the necessary capital, the idea being that adjacent land values would rise to cover the costs. This is merely a disguised form of government debt, and has no relationship whatsoever with organic market supply and demand. Turnbull though, will attempt to deceive Liberals, and the broader public, with platitudes about this being “innovative”, rational, pro-growth economics.

In reality, these projects represent ‘smart city’ social engineering, and will be economically damaging. Firstly there is the opportunity cost. Redirecting capital into ideological urban rail projects means that capital is unavailable for efficient, growth-maximising projects that would deliver far greater increases in tax revenue.

Secondly, this provides yet another perverse incentive for governments to keep suburban property prices artificially high using crippling building restrictions at the suburban fringe. There are no guarantees that train and tram lines will themselves increase land values, as is suggested. Elevated rail lines produce eyesores and havens for crime. It has even been publicly admitted that NIMBY-ism might be a problem, and cheap borrowings could be used to pay people off.

Labor, of course, won’t attack Turnbull on these matters because they want to pursue similar policies, and Turnbull will provide Labor with ongoing political cover in that regard.

  1. Variable-rate pay-per-km driving taxes via mandatory GPS-tracking in all vehicles

This is yet another intermediate step on the path to totalitarian ‘smart cities’. In March 2014, the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott was lobbied to accept this as policy by the so-called ‘Productivity Commission’, which is yet another technocratic front group pushing the “smart city” agenda under the guise of “boosting productivity”.

Prime Minister Abbott rejected the plan, saying:

”I understand that there is some suggestion in a report that might be released today about putting GPS equipment into every car…That certainly is a novel suggestion by Australian standards and it’s not something that this government is considering.”

Turnbull has changed that policy and now has one of his acolytes and ideological fellow-travelers, Paul Fletcher, the MP for Bradfield, working on it.

gps-tracking-car-taxIt should be noted that fuel excise taxes are already an efficient means of achieving a ‘user pays’ system without putting in place the infrastructure of a totalitarian state. Given the ‘Productivity Commission’ also endorses further increasing our spiraling national debt to fund projects like this, it is clear that this shadowy organisation isn’t really about sound economic policy.

This GPS-tracking tax system will be used to enforce congestion taxes to pull more cars off the road, and raise the necessary funds, to further the ‘smart city’ agenda. The basic equation goes something like this:

Neglect Car-Based Road Infrastructure + Increase Population via Immigration = Deliberately Engineered Congestion => Heavily Tax that Congestion = Effectively force people to give up cars and move into inner-urban apartments and take the tram or Uber (or, eventually, a driverless mini-car) to work.

This will, of course, reduce traffic congestion in the same way that euthanasia reduces the cost of aged care.

The History of ‘Cities’ Policy in Australia

In 1968, federal Opposition Leader Gough Whitlam announced a policy to create a ‘Department of Urban Affairs’, a novel concept at the time. In 1971 Whitlam changed the proposed name to ‘Department of Housing, Urban Affairs and Regional Development‘ to conceal his city-centric, elitist agenda.

Responding to Whitlam, Liberal Prime Minister Billy McMahon set up a ‘National Urban and Regional Development Authority (NURDA)’ in October 1972, which Whitlam called “belated and inadequate”. When he came to power two months later, Whitlam decided the new department would be titled ‘Department of Urban and Regional Development’, and NURDA was converted into a ‘Cities Commission’ within the department.

Upon coming to power in 1975, the Fraser Liberal-National Government abolished the department.

The Hawke-Keating era saw the re-establishment of federal involvement in ‘cities’ policy, with programs like ‘Building Better Cities‘, AMCORD and ‘Green Street‘. Keating also established a ‘Department of Housing and Regional Development’, which produced papers titled ‘Green Cities’, ‘Urban Public Transport Futures’ and ‘Smart Planning, Not Sprawl’ among others . Further, it was Keating who adopted the ‘Agenda 21’ program, a 300-page United Nations document that advocates similar policies as necessary for ‘sustainable development’, a concept based on bogus ‘green’ ideology and ‘global warming’ theories.

The Howard government abolished these programs, but the Rudd-Gillard Labor years again saw the federal government pushing ‘smart cities’. A ‘Major Cities Unit’ was created to drive urban policy and publish an annual ‘State of Australian Cities’ report. A ‘National Urban Policy‘ was also produced.

In 2013 new Prime Minister Tony Abbott implemented traditional Liberal-National policy by abolishing the ‘Major Cities Unit’ (on his first day in office, no less) and related initiatives. Further, he explicitly refused to provide federal funds for urban rail projects (other than through the asset recycling program).

In creating this ministry, and pushing this agenda, Turnbull is positioning himself to the left of even Malcolm Fraser. This is something Turnbull has done before. In his 1988 book ‘The SpyCatcher Trial‘, Turnbull heaps praise upon Gough Whitlam, the initiator of the federal cities agenda, saying he is a “living legend” and “much-loved elder statesman” who: “…compares so favourably to his drab successor, the Liberal Malcolm Fraser…”.1

It should also be noted that, on the 25th of September 2015, just 11 days after the knifing of Tony Abbott, the Turnbull Government adopted an updated version of Agenda 21, titled ‘Agenda 2030’. One might wonder what Tony Abbott’s attitude to adopting ‘Agenda 2030’ was prior to his political assassination.

Academics Cited by Turnbull

The academic most cited by Turnbull, with regard to cities, is Edward Glaeser, a Professor at Harvard University in the U.S. state of Massachusetts. Glaeser openly argues:

  • Against funding new highways and freeways.
  • In favour of higher petrol prices.
  • In favour of tilting the benefits of the tax system away from suburbanites and toward inner-urban high-rise residents.
  • In favour of pro-density zoning laws.

Glaeser doesn’t hide the fact that he wants to discourage so-called “sprawl” and encourage urban high-rise. Tellingly, he admits sprawl is more consistent with liberalism and freedom, but still opposes it (that is, for the masses, but not for himself, as you’ll see).

One of Glaeser’s primary justifications is, of course, combating ‘climate change’, and he says suburbanisation is an ‘ecological disaster’. He even opposes inner-urban green spaces and heritage listings, on the basis that they undermine density. High-density living, he says, produces an average of 40% less carbon emissions than suburban and rural living.

So where does Glaeser himself live?

In a 2-million-dollar, 5-bedroom luxury mansion (pictured below), on a 6.5 acre block, in the affluent Massachusetts town of Weston, with his wife Nancy, and several children, of course.


How lovely.

Malcolm Turnbull himself though, outdoes Glaeser, with his 1,940-square-metre waterfront mansion in Point Piper, Sydney, estimated to be worth around $50 million. Not to mention his 1000-hectare farm in the Hunter Valley, and no doubt many other properties.

It seems those tiny high-rise units are just for the poor little plebs. As Glaeser himself says “there’s a lot to like about urban poverty”. As long as he’s not the one experiencing it, of course.

Randal O’Toole, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute (a free-market think tank), has exposed Glaeser as a charlatan, saying:

“…Glaeser is on the wrong side of a debate between those who believe in mobility vs. those who want the government to favor smart growth. Smart-growth advocates say Americans drive too much and the solution is to pack people into denser cities where they can reach destinations by transit, walking, or cycling. Smart-growth prescriptions include urban-growth boundaries and other policies to limit low-density development combined with subsidies to transit and high-density housing. Mobility advocates oppose mandates and subsidies and say that government should either spend highway user fees on highways, not transit, or get out of the way and let the private sector build new roads…”

Although Glaeser claims to believe that cities are our greatest invention, he publicly admits to wanting to shut many of them down. For instance, after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, he argued that the city should not be rebuilt. He further argued that many ‘rust belt’ cities in the United States should be shut down.

Clearly the true end game has nothing to do with loving cities and wanting to improve them.

High-Density Urban Living = Entrenched Green-Left Politics

Most people are not ideological, and don’t study philosophy. Their political opinions develop as a result of their everyday experiences. The evidence clearly shows that people who live in high-density urban environments are highly susceptible to green-left politics.

For instance, at the 2012 US Presidential election, leftist Barack Obama easily won all the big cities with the highest population densities like New York City, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Seattle. Generally, American conservatives only have a chance at winning southern cities of much lower density like Dallas, Houston, Phoenix and Oklahoma City. Even then, the inner parts of these cities are usually still leftist strongholds.

If you look at the dense, inner parts of the five big Australian cities, they are largely controlled by Labor and the Greens. Liberals only have a chance in these areas when they lurch to the left.

Clearly, having a higher proportion of the Australian population living high-density city lifestyles will mean a more left-wing Australian electorate, and further, the decimation of the National Party. Turnbull and the left want to facilitate this, and they will use general revenues to selectively improve inner-cities, rewarding the very people who most ardently support, and vote for, the policies that cause our overall economic decline.

The Relatively Esoteric Nature of ‘Cities’ Policy

Shortly after Turnbull won the Prime Ministership, green-left Fairfax journalist Peter Hartcher wrote:

“His political identity has long been stamped “progressive” because of his liberal approach to same sex marriage, his republican approach to the constitution and his activist approach to climate change… He is constrained in moving on any of these areas. Putting party unity ahead of policy progress, Turnbull has recommitted to all of Abbott’s policies. He will make cautious, incremental change where he can, but in the meantime he needs something else to demonstrate his mastery of the future… So we see cities policy, and innovation, pressed into service in a hurry.”

Turnbull knows he is relatively boxed-in on the big ticket items that conservatives care about, so he is moving fast on a policy that he thinks most conservatives are too stupid and ignorant to understand is a core component of the left-wing policy agenda. He augments this strategy with cunning appointments and timing.

He has appointed Angus Taylor, an Abbott-supporter and perceived conservative, as the minister responsible for cities. He had previously appointed another Abbott-supporter as the relevant minister, Jamie Briggs, but Briggs was forced to resign over a (very minor) scandal. If the policy is being enunciated by a perceived ally, it is more difficult for conservatives to both discover the nefarious nature of this policy, and to criticise it. The pre-election timing could also mute conservative criticism, for fear that election losses will subsequently be blamed on conservative undermining.

If Taylor is a true conservative he will do everything possible to undermine this policy from within, perhaps by reshaping it into something more conservative-friendly via inclusion of more car-based road infrastructure that improves travel times for residents in rural areas and the outer suburbs.

Turnbull must not be allowed to engrave this agenda in legislation. His deal with the Greens on Senate voting reform is particularly worrying because it may result in a Turnbull Government with a Greens balance of power in the Senate, wiping out conservative-friendly cross-benchers. The new system also makes a future Liberal-National Senate majority essentially impossible, meaning Turnbull could ‘conservative-proof’ this agenda into legislation, much like the Rudd-Gillard Labor government’s attempts to ‘Abbott-proof‘ their policies prior to their inevitable defeat.

‘Cities’ Policy – Admittedly Ideological

That these ‘cities’ policies are part of a leftist agenda is no conspiracy theory. Leftist outlets like The Guardian admit the ideological nature of ‘cities’ policies:

“Expressing preferences in these matters and showing enthusiasm for one mode over another does tend to signal ideologically where you stand – and what kind of city you imagine is best. Close, dense, high-rise living? Spacious, garden suburbs? Decentralised regional cities? They’re questions of ideology and aesthetics that the new minister is going to have to come to grips with.”

Green-leftists like Elizabeth Farrelly dominate urban policy think-tanks and the ‘built environment’ departments of universities in Australia. With impunity, they will advocate these policies under the guise of neutral scholarship. Turnbull will then cite these ‘studies’ as justification for his policies.

Shortly after Turnbull took the Prime Ministership, Tony Walker of the Australian Financial Review noted that:

“His attachment to public transport – Turnbull’s selfies on trains, ferries and buses have become part of his political persona — more than likely serves a political purpose.”

Indeed it does. Turnbull’s years of endless public transport selfies act as implicit messages to the green-left elites that despite being in the Liberal Party he is nevertheless ‘one of them’, and is doing whatever he possibly can to pursue their agenda and crush the conservatives.

How often does Turnbull take a smiling selfie in front of a new freeway? Never. Indeed he has explicitly pushed anti-car rhetoric on his social media accounts.

The left-wing media praises the fact that both major parties are now pushing the same agenda, with conservatism shut out. For instance, Peter Hartcher says:

“Happily, the government and the opposition are trying to outbid each other on the ambitiousness of their cities policies.”

Meanwhile, there’s ‘barely a space on the map where the Greens (Turnbull’s new electoral teammates) aren’t proposing to run a new rail line or a new tram line, build a new station or duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate rail lines’, according to Melbourne urbanist Alan Davies.

In order to stop this nefarious agenda, conservatives must get a handle on this crucial policy area, and put forth our superior alternatives. But first, of course, we must Stop Turnbull.


Back to Homepage


1. Turnbull, M. (1988). The Spycatcher Trial. (p. 149). London: Heinemann.