How Turnbull’s anti-Trump scheming demonstrates his contempt for Australia

23rd July, 2018


All Australians, regardless of our feelings about Donald Trump’s personal behaviour, must recognise that he is President of our great and longtime friend, ally, and security guarantor, the United States’ of America, and was chosen for that office by 63 million of its people.

We must always remember that during World War II Australia was vulnerable to Japanese invasion. Although our defence forces fought with great skill and bravery, we simply didn’t have a large enough population (only 7 million at the time) to guarantee a successful defence of our sparsely populated homeland continent against the relatively gargantuan Japanese Empire of 70 million people. And who came to our aid? As Australia’s ambassador to the United States said in a May 2017 interview on an American news network:

“There are 150,000 dead American soldiers buried in the sand between Australia and Japan, and that’s an inter-generational legacy that we won’t let go of.”

The American people elected Trump. These are the same people who sacrificed 150,000 men so that the Australian continent wouldn’t become an Imperial Japanese internment camp. And they continue to guarantee our security under the ANZUS treaty. That is why we should never accept a Prime Minister who unnecessarily antagonises and connives against a duly elected American President. And Turnbull repeatedly does exactly that, for example:

  • Turnbull ratified the Paris Climate Accord within hours of Trump’s election win as a slap in the face to Trump, who had campaigned strongly against it.
  • Turnbull announced, just 5 days after Trump’s election win, that he was going to force Trump into a lose-lose situation by insisting upon a resettlement deal for ‘refugees’ done with Obama that contradicted Trump’s policy platform.
  • Turnbull mocked Trump, and pushed the idea that Trump was corrupt, with his little stand-up comedy routine at Canberra’s ‘Midwinter Ball’.
  • After Trump announced the US’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty, Turnbull antagonised Trump by announcing that he would welcome Communist China joining the treaty instead.
  • Turnbull praised, and posted selfies with, the obscene anti-Trump fanatic, Cher.
  • The Turnbull Government actually triggered the Trump-Russia witch-hunt by Obama’s FBI

…and much more, as I will now document in greater detail.

Turnbull snubs Trump on trip to the US

Turnbull’s anti-Trump activities begin on the 19th of January 2016, during a Prime Ministerial trip to Washington DC. Donald Trump was then the front-running candidate for the Republican Party Presidential nomination, yet Turnbull chose to snub both him and the second-running Republican candidate Ted Cruz (a strong conservative).

Turnbull had conversations with the front-runner for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, as well as the highest-placed Republican he could possibly stomach, Marco Rubio, but “attempted no contact” with Trump or Cruz.

Turnbull media ally Laurie Oakes, reporting on Turnbull’s US trip, wrote:

“…no one close to either [Trump or Cruz] was invited to an Australian embassy dinner for Republican officials to meet the Australian leader. That is despite the fact that experts Turnbull spoke to in Washington advised him that, on current evidence, one of those men, rather than Rubio or any of the other “establishment” Republican candidates, would be Hillary Clinton’s opponent at the end of the year…

The truth is that [Turnbull] dreads the thought of either Trump, nuttily Right-wing and populist, or Cruz, darling of Tea Party extremists, becoming president of the US…he would prefer, although he can hardly say so publicly, to see Clinton and the Democrats win…when asked late last year what kind of president Trump would make, Turnbull laughed but declined to comment.”

Turnbull Govt. triggers Obama’s Trump-Russia witch-hunt

In July 2016 the US Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), under then US President Barack Obama, opened an “investigation” into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

Why did this happen? Because of the Turnbull Government.

In May 2016 the Turnbull Government’s High Commissioner to the UK, Alexander Downer, was at the Kensington Wine Rooms in London. There he met George Papadopoulos, a 28-year-old, unpaid, minnow working for the Trump campaign’s foreign policy advisory panel. It is claimed that Papadopolous told Downer that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Within 48 hours Downer sent an official cable to the Turnbull Government. Then, according to media reports:

“Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their [Obama administration]… counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.”

After discussions with the Obama administration, the Turnbull Government actually went so far as to break with standard diplomatic protocol so that High Commissioner Downer could be formally interviewed by the FBI about his meeting with Papadopoulos.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Turnbull Government’s handling of this was also a breach of the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence sharing arrangements between Australia, the United States and three other countries. All information is supposed to be co-ordinated via intelligence agencies to prevent political manipulation. This was flouted in the Papadopoulos case. Australia’s intelligence agencies, if they received the Papadopoulos information at all, did not feel it was necessary to alert the FBI because the official FBI documents that launched the investigation contain no foreign intelligence whatsoever.

It was the information from the Turnbull Government that triggered the opening of an investigation by eager anti-Trump forces within the then Obama-controlled FBI.

Turnbull’s horror at Trump election win

On US election night in early November 2016, immediately after Trump’s victory speech, Turnbull called a press conference in Canberra. Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt said the following about that press conference:

“When Trump won the election Malcolm Turnbull acted like it was a disaster. He called a press conference telling us not to panic. Turnbull seemed appalled and totally unprepared for Trump.”

First thing the following morning Turnbull ratified the Paris Climate Accord to slap Trump (who had campaigned strongly against it) in the face as publicly and obviously as he possibly could. He couldn’t even wait one day. He then walked into parliament and, again contradicting Trump, gave praise to Barack Obama:

“We have had a very good relationship with the current administration…President Obama has served the world well…”

That is not the opinion of the Liberal Party’s grand elder, John Howard, whose government is seen as the gold standard for modern Coalition governments.

Howard has severely criticised Barack Obama for his contribution to global affairs over a long period of time. In 2007 Howard said an Obama election victory would be a victory for Al Qaeda (proven prescient). In 2014 he said Obama was complacent about the terrorist threat. In 2015 he rebuked Obama for “wading into domestic political differences on climate change” during the 2014 G20 Summit in Brisbane. In 2017 Howard said:

“…the decline in America’s influence in the world during the Obama administration was very marked, to say the least, and I think we are still paying a very heavy price in relation to places such as the Ukraine and Crimea and the Middle East. I’ve never forgotten President Obama’s West Point commencement speech of 2014 in which he virtually, at the very least, inferred that the administration regarded the ‘Islamic’ terrorist threat as “in retreat”, and yet, within a very short period of time we had IS bursting out of Syria and parts of Iraq.”

Trump has, of course, repudiated, and sought to overturn, Obama’s legacy with regard to global affairs, and has said Obama is perhaps the worst US President in history.

Refugee deal: Turnbull attempts to check-mate Trump

On the 13th of November 2016, just 5 days after Trump’s election victory, Turnbull decided he would play a game of chicken with our security guarantor, and put Trump in a lose-lose situation. He publicly announced a deal with lame-duck President Obama to assess and resettle asylum seekers still held in Australia’s offshore refugee processing centres in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Nauru.

It should be noted that the deal only obliged the US to go through the process of assessment for between 1,250 and 2,000 people on Nauru and PNG’s Manus Island. It did not oblige the US to actually take anyone, but only to act in good faith. The deal, therefore, seems designed purely to damage Trump politically because, even if he had ultimately decided not to accept a single person, he would still initially be forced to publicly acknowledge the deal’s existence.

It is claimed by Turnbull that this deal was agreed to all the way back in January 2016 and had a “long run-up” but that claim is dubious, and the deal appears to have only been signed after Trump’s election win, which was achieved, in no short measure, by his policies and rhetoric on restricting immigration.

According to reports the deal hadn’t yet been finalised even days after the 13th of November announcement. A report in The Australian newspaper on the 16th of November said:

“The Prime Minister and Mr Obama are planning to meet at the APEC forum in Lima to discuss progress on the agreement for the US to take asylum-seekers…Mr Obama is attending the APEC meeting this weekend for his last major summit before the inauguration of Mr Trump on January 20, setting up a chance for Australia to cement the resettlement arrangement before the transition to a new administration.”

So it appears the deal was deliberately contrived by Barack Obama and Turnbull, two ideological fellow-travellers, to put Trump in a lose-lose situation and destabilise him as he was trying to settle into the presidency. Given the Obama administration’s surveillance and espionage efforts against the Trump campaign, we know Obama is certainly capable of such things.

In an appearance on Sky News [2nd Feb, 2017], editor of The Spectator magazine, Rowan Dean, explained the situation:

“…they finalised this deal with Obama which was so obviously going to completely put Donald Trump in an impossible position, because Obama and Turnbull stitched up this deal after Donald Trump had been elected and after he had made it very clear that he was going to ban immigration from…certain middle eastern countries…Donald Trump has got no choice other than to either disappoint his base, the people who voted for him, or to disappoint Australia. He’s been put in the impossible position and it’s all Malcolm Turnbull’s doing, and this idea that somehow this reflects poorly on Donald Trump is a complete nonsense…the polls in America show that Americans, I think its two-to-one in one poll, 50-50 in another poll, certainly the support is there for the actions and so by forcing Trump into this position, which Turnbull and Bishop have done, they’re basically saying to at least half, possibly two-thirds of the American population, we’re going to play these games with you.”

Here Rowan Dean correctly identifies one of the ultimate intended targets of Turnbull’s anti-Trump offensive, namely the conservative-voting American public. These are the same types of Americans who, in great numbers, join and support the US military that has been, and still is, so crucial to protecting Australia. And yet our Prime Minister wants to antagonise them. Think about that.

The deal threatens US national security

Consider the following scenario. What if the US accepts some of our refugees, and one of them turns out to be a terrorist who commits a major atrocity inside the US? What will the American people think when they study the background of this terrorist, who murdered their countrymen, and find out that he was only allowed in their country because of arm-twisting by an Australian Prime Minister?

Terrorists have been known to pose as humanitarian cases to infiltrate western countries, and there are numerous cases of asylum seekers, supposed refugees, and their children, involved in terrorist activities.

Examples from Australia include:

  • The 2009 case of Saney Aweys (‘refugee’ from Somalia) who, with others, planned to murder 500 Australian Defence Force personnel at Holsworthy army barracks.
  • The 2013 case of Mohammad Ali Baryalei (‘refugee’ from Afghanistan) who traveled from Sydney to Syria to fight for ‘Islamic State’.
  • The September 2014 case of Abdul Numan Haider (‘refugee’ from Afghanistan) who brutally stabbed two police officers in Melbourne.
  • The December 2014 case of Man Haron Monis (‘refugee’ from Iran) who took several hostages at the Lindt Cafe in Sydney’s CBD, killing two.
  • The October 2015 case of Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar (‘refugee’ from Iraq) who murdered a police accountant in Sydney.
  • The June 2017 case of Yacqub Khayre (‘refugee’ from Somalia/Kenya) who murdered a receptionist and took a woman hostage at an apartment block in Brighton, Melbourne.

Some examples from other countries include:

  • The April 2013 case of the Tsarnaev brothers (asylum grantees from Russia) who carried out the Boston Bombing in the United States.
  • The July 2016 case of Riaz Khan Ahmadzai (‘refugee’ from Afghanistan/Pakistan) who attacked people with an axe on a train in Germany.
  • The September 2016 case of Ahmad Khan Rahimi (‘refugee’ from Afghanistan) who bombed a charity run for U.S. military personnel in New Jersey, in addition to other targets.
  • The November 2016 case of Abdul Razak Ali Artan (‘refugee’ from Somalia) who drove his car into a crowd and stabbed people at Ohio State University in the United States.
  • The May 2017 case of Salman Ramadan Abedi (‘refugee’ parents from Libya) who suicide-bombed a concert in Manchester, U.K..
  • The September 2017 case of Ahmed Hassan (‘refugee’ from Iraq) who bombed a packed rush-hour train in London.

Even if the refugees accepted by the US are not subsequently involved in terrorism, there is still massive public relations damage caused to Australia because the deal is seen to be a threat by the American people. It has been publicly criticised on that score by media commentators and members of the Trump administration. Trump’s then Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, said at a press conference, in response to questioning by an Australian journalist:

“The President is unbelievably disappointed in the previous administration’s deal that was made…and the threat to national security it put the United States under.”

By February 2018 the US had already accepted well over 100 people from both Papua New Guinea and Nauru including many Afghans and Pakistanis.

A photo of “refugees” leaving Papua New Guinea for the US

The deal threatens Australia’s national security as well

Not only does this deal threaten our national security by hurting our relationship with the American people, it also threatens it by encouraging the people smugglers. Indonesia’s senior police commissioner for human, child and sex trafficking acknowledged this saying the deal will be a “breath of fresh air for people-smugglers”. Similarly, The Australian newspaper’s Foreign Editor, Greg Sheridan, said:

“…it gives people-smugglers a magnificent new version of the old product they have always been selling, an immigration outcome in a first-world country…The US deal represented a kind of capitulation from Canberra. It suggests that the old tactic of outwaiting the Australian government is effective eventually.

The other problem with the deal was that it used up way too much of Australia’s strategic capit­al with Washington for an issue of no real strategic significance. It is certainly a bad way to start things off with the new administration.”

Restarting the unauthorised boat arrivals via the people smuggling trade will mean a loss of control over the content of our immigration intake, and increases the risk of terrorists gaining entry. It also costs a fortune, and will exacerbate the massive debt and deficit problem.

Perhaps the best evidence that this deal threatens Australia’s border protection and national security is that it is supported by the Labor Party, but it’s not the only Turnbull Government policy in this area that is backed by Labor. The government is now saying it is favourable towards the offer from left-wing New Zealand Labour Party Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, to resettle people in New Zealand, a country with whom, of course, we have free movement arrangements.

The people smugglers have already been stimulated into action by these policies. In May 2018 a large boat carrying 131 Sri Lankans was intercepted by Malaysian authorities on its way to Australia. The operation was the biggest and most sophisticated of its kind in a very long time. The government tried to blame this on Labor, but Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt made the obvious point:

“This government has been in power…it’s the actions of this government that make the difference, and those actions include making a deal with the United States that has got, now, more than 100 people off Manus Island…and Nauru to America. So…I think it’s the government’s actions rather than Labor’s talk that would’ve made the difference.”

Why did Turnbull make this deal?

Turnbull certainly didn’t make this deal to gain votes because the voters who would support asylum seekers going to a first-world country, and thus stimulating the people smuggling business, are all of the far left, and they will not vote Liberal under any circumstances. Swinging voters are conservative on this issue, which is why Labor are always forced to act like they will maintain border protection before an election.

No doubt some will contend that Turnbull made the deal because of the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court’s April 2016 ruling that asylum seekers in that country must not be forcibly detained, and must be allowed to roam around. But given that the deal the Australian government struck with Papua New Guinea in 2013 allowed for resettlement of refugees in that country anyway, allowing them the freedom to move around the country isn’t much of an issue.

Did he do it out of sympathy for the people on Manus and Nauru? Firstly, the moral obligation to refugees is to provide them safety and security, not a first-world migration outcome with lavish welfare benefits. Genuine refugees would be happy with safety, which is exactly what these people have available to them. Secondly, as I will detail later, Turnbull’s deal doesn’t require the US to take s single person. Thirdly, if you think Malcolm Turnbull truly cares about the plight of the downtrodden, you need to wake yourself up by reading the rest of our material here at StopTurnbull.com.

So if Turnbull didn’t do this deal with Obama for political gain, out of necessity, or out of sympathy, then why did he do it? The obvious answer is that he did it to attack someone he perceived to be a powerful ideological enemy, Donald Trump, whilst simultaneously serving the borderless agenda of the leftist-globalists.

Turnbull actually wants to destroy the Howard-Abbott ‘Pacific Solution’ because the policy is a sin against the globalist ideology, and treaty regime, of the UN elites, as they so often remind us. As StopTurnbull.com has documented, Turnbull personal views are, and have always been, opposed to effective border protection. He has repeatedly undermined the ‘Pacific Solution’ by calling it “harsh” and “cruel”, and only maintained the strong policy of Tony Abbott for as long as he did due to backbench pressure.

Turnbull’s taunts Trump over TPP

On the 23rd of January 2017 Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States as a signatory to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a supranational trade and regulatory treaty originally entered into by 12 countries. Turnbull immediately and publicly antagonised Trump by proposing that Communist China (obviously the US’s primary strategic competitor in the Asia-Pacific region) replace the United States.

The infamous phone call

The Turnbull-Trump phone call took place at about 9am Canberra time on the 29th of January, 2017. Just a day earlier Trump had signed an executive order placing heavy restrictions on immigration from several countries from which terrorists tend to originate.

If you read the leaked transcript of the phone call it was clear Trump wasn’t going to take an aggressive posture against Turnbull with regard to the deal, no doubt due to his high regard for Australia and his being misinformed that this deal was somehow good for Australia.

Given this deal was a mere executive agreement, Trump had the absolute legal right to scrap it, and tell Turnbull to get stuffed. He also had a democracy-based argument for doing so considering the deal was struck after his election win on a platform of implementing strong new border protection and national security policies. Yet he didn’t go on the front foot against Turnbull. Instead, despite his justifiable irritation, he bent over backwards to do what he thought was needed to accommodate a close friend in Australia. Turnbull took advantage of this, hijacking the good name of Australia for his nefarious scheme.

Trump actually gave Turnbull the opportunity to present any back-down as a favour to him, a favour that he was willing to repay many times over to Australia’s benefit. It was easy to see that Trump is the kind of person who, if you make a good first impression with him, or do a favour for him in a tough situation, he remembers it for the rest of his life. He even stated this publicly just one day before the Turnbull phone call, at his press conference with British Prime Minister Theresa May:

“I can often tell how I get along with somebody very early and I believe we’re going to have a fantastic relationship.”

That statement is ominous for Australia if Turnbull remains Prime Minister.

Embellished and distorted leaks to the Washington Post

The phone call was meant to be private, but a few days after it happened the Washington Post (a left-wing, establishment US newspaper) published an attack piece on Trump that contained a few supposed quotes from the phone call, apparently leaked by US officials. But the full transcript of the phone call, released 6 months later, reveals that most of these quotes were deliberately embellished and/or distorted to make Trump look crazy, crude and foolish, or they were outright fakes.

I will now list all the so-called quotes published in the initial Washington Post attack piece [2nd Feb, 2017] and explain how they compare to the later released transcript:

  • This was the worst call by farEmbellished – The Washington Post reported that Trump mentioned other world leaders he had called that day, and said “this was the worse call by far”. That is false. Trump did mention the other world leaders but never said “by far” or anything similar. Furthermore, he didn’t even use the word “worst”. He simply said that it was his “most unpleasant call” for that day.
  • This is the worst deal ever – Embellished – Trump uses a few different pejoratives to describe the deal, but nothing in the transcript even comes close to suggesting Trump was of the opinion that this was the worst deal “ever”. This was clearly concocted to make Trump look crude and childish.
  • going to get killedReal – Trump did say “I am going to get killed on this thing…I will be seen as a weak and ineffective leader in my first week”.
  • next Boston bombersDistorted – The Washington Post reported that Trump “accused Australia” of seeking to export the next Boston Bombers. Trump did mention the Boston Bombers (who had entered the US as asylum seekers) but only in the context of inquiring about the refugees’ backgrounds. He didn’t accuse Australia of anything.
  • I don’t want these people – Distorted – This appears nowhere in the transcript. There are sentences that could be considered to have similar meaning, but this sentence doesn’t appear.
  • my intentionFake – The Washington Post reported that Trump only told Turnbull that it his “intention” to honour the agreement, to leave himself room to back out of the deal. That is false. The transcript shows that Trump clearly and unambiguously agreed to go through with the deal, and never used the phrase “my intention” anywhere.
  • extreme vettingReal – Trump said “vet them very closely” when referring directly to the Australian refugees, but did also use the phrase “extreme vetting” in a broader policy context.

There were other deceitful claims in the article.

Firstly, the Washington Post claimed that Trump “repeatedly misstated the number of refugees called for in the agreement as 2,000 rather than 1,250”. This claim is false. The agreement calls for a maximum intake of between 1,250 and 2,000, as Turnbull explicitly states in the phone call:

“The obligation is for the United States to look and examine and take up to and only if they so choose – 1,250 to 2,000.”

Secondly, the article claimed that Trump “boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win” in the phone call. If you read what Trump said about the electoral college vote in the transcript, it can’t possibly be described as boasting when read in context. Here is exactly what Trump said:

“Look, I do not know how you got them to sign a deal like this, but that is how they lost the election. They said I had no way to 270 and I got 306. That is why they lost the election, because of stupid deals like this.”

As you can see, it is actually the opposite to boasting, because Trump was suggesting that he was not personally responsible for his election win, and was only able to navigate what seemed to be an impossible electoral college pathway to victory because people were sick of bad Democrat policies, like this refugee deal. In other words, Trump was saying that people were voting against the Democrats, rather than in favour of him.

Who was the original leaker?

Some have theorised that Trump himself authorised the leaks to the Washington Post to show his voters that he is serious about border security. This is nonsensical for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the Washington Post has been an avowed enemy of Trump from the beginning of his candidacy. It could not be trusted to present the story in a way that helped Trump, and indeed it didn’t. At the time of the phone call Trump had just, about a week before, been sworn into the presidency and, given the extraordinary street riots, impeachment talk, and media coverage questioning his mental fitness, he needed to present a reassuring public image of stability and sanity to quiet things down and settle in. That is not what he got from the Washington Post article which allowed the media to further build their strawman of Trump as a security risk and an international embarrassment.

Secondly, prior to the phone call the deal had already been taken for granted as going ahead by Trump, because he included a special provision in his executive order [section 5(e)], signed the day before, to exempt the deal from the new immigration restrictions. Trump again confirmed that the deal would go ahead in his phone call with Turnbull, but simply made a completely reasonable last-ditch attempt to persuade Turnbull to withdraw the deal as a favour. Given the deal was definitely going ahead, it was not in Trump’s political interests, with regard to his voter constituency, for the then low profile refugee deal to blow-up and become more publicly known.

Thirdly, the author of the Washington Post article, Greg Miller, has denied the leak came from Trump. In an interview on Sky News [2nd Feb, 2017], Miller strongly suggested the leak didn’t come from Trump, saying:

“I wouldn’t go so far as to assume that this was…a leak that was orchestrated by Trump himself…that would be mistaken….I would caution you away from concluding that this is a plant from this white house to exploit this conversation for political gain. I’m not sure that they’re quite that calculating.”

Is there any chance that Trump’s opponents within the bureaucracy leaked it? The problem with that theory is that transcripts of these conversations are only provided to a very small group of people from a President’s trusted inner circle. As John Bolton said in a February 2017 interview with Breitbart News (over a year before he was appointed to be Trump’s National Security Advisor):

“I’ve seen transcripts of Presidential calls with foreign leaders, and they’re distributed to a very small circle of people. Very small circle of people…”

It is my view that the original leak, with the embellished quotes, came from Turnbull himself. He probably delivered it to the Washington Post via ideologically-friendly contacts within the US bureaucracy, which at that time would’ve still been saturated with Obama appointments. This allowed the Washington Post article to state that the source of the leaks was “senior U.S. officials”, thus naturally resulting in the reader assuming that the origin of the leak was the US government itself.

The leak actually appears to have been part of Turnbull and Obama’s plan from the beginning. Having put Trump in a lose-lose political situation, they wanted to prevent him keeping the matter low profile and diplomatic in the public sphere. Instead, they wanted to maximise the damage by making public as much explicit, direct-from-Trump material as possible. The phone call offered the opportunity because Trump would be talking frankly, under the impression that it was a private conversation.

It is important to note that Turnbull is the one who raised the issue as his number one priority in the phone call, which was their very first formal contact. He didn’t have to raise such a controversial matter within the first few minutes of their very first formal phone call, especially since Trump had already essentially agreed to go forward with the deal before the call by putting the exemption in his executive order. Discussions about the deal could’ve been had at lower levels of authority in order to protect the personal relationship between the leaders of important allies. It seems Turnbull insisted on bringing it up because he needed material directly from Trump that he could leak and cause a stir with, as per the plan. Statements from others in the Trump administration wouldn’t generate the media and public interest necessary to do political damage to Trump.

Leaks of this sort also hurt Trump in that they make world leaders, and other people, less likely to confide in him privately with important information.

Turnbull’s bogus defence: “I’m standing up for Australia”

When the Washington Post article came out, and the matter blew up in the media, Turnbull had the following exchange with a journalist:

Journalist: “Prime Minister…I think the Australian public would be interested in your relationship with our most important partner. Did [Trump] hang up the phone to you earlier than you expected?”

Turnbull: I’m not going to comment on these reports of a conversation. Australians know me very well. I always stand up for Australia in every forum.

His claim that “I always stand up for Australia”, apart from implicitly bolstering the Washington Post article, would actually strike anyone who knows him very well as blatantly absurd. Turnbull has made it his business to repeatedly attack Australia, right down to its very origin.

He has called the colonisation of Australia an “invasion“, praised an aborigine who is recorded as having murdered at least one unarmed settler, and has effectively said that all non-aboriginal people in Australia are unjust occupiers.

In 1988 the country celebrated 200 years since the arrival of the First Fleet. Turnbull called it a “year of shame”.1 That was the same year he became a director of AusFlag, an organisation dedicated to getting rid of the Australian flag and supporting an ugly, pagan replacement.2 Indeed, hanging in his Parliament House office is an artwork titled “Majority Rule“, which shows an ‘aboriginal flag’ flying over Old Parliament House, with no Australian flag in sight.

turnbull-artworks-01
This artwork, showing an ‘aboriginal flag’ flying over Old Parliament House, is hanging in Malcolm Turnbull’s parliamentary office.

Turnbull has also attacked federation, calling our Australian Constitution “a woefully undemocratic document”; “a drab and misleading document”; and a “tortured piece of late-Victorian prose” that is full of “ill-conceived anachronisms”.3 He said our founding fathers “fell into error” when writing it.

He has mocked that great pillar of Australian culture that we call ‘mateship‘, and opposed its inclusion in the constitution. He has repeatedly disrespected Australian Defence Force personnel by ignoring or abolishing various services and commemorations, and by defending the ABC amidst their attack on Navy personnel.

He has undermined national security. He has attacked our border protection regime, calling it “harsh” and “cruel”, and has implemented policies that stimulate people-smugglers. He has delayed crucial military hardware purchases, used them to pork-barrel marginal electorates, and used suppliers that are compromised by data leaks.

He has undermined national unity by promoting a pernicious doctrine of multiculturalism, saying we should assimilate to the new immigrants rather than they to us. He says it’s a good thing, for example, that 600,000 people in Australia speak Chinese as their primary language, adding that “China is part of Australia”. This is thinly-disguised neo-colonisation and balkanisation designed to break Australia apart so that we are no longer a distinct, united, sovereign nation.

His republican push is a front for effectively abolishing the Australia we have known and loved, and founding a new “Australia” on a leftist-“progressive” philosophical basis, with himself as founding father. He wants to pull Australia out by the roots, graft on some mutant branches, and re-plant it in his own noxious soil. He even publicly admits in his 1993 book The Reluctant Republic that the new republic is designed to “define our nationhood”.4

As Tony Abbott once wrote:

“…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.” 5

So, clearly, Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t “stand up for Australia”. Instead, he laboriously chips away at its every pillar. He wants the Australia we love to be demolished, and is cunningly pursuing that outcome as Prime Minister.

The Mid-winter Ball and other insults

On the 14th of June 2017, at the Canberra Press Gallery’s Mid-Winter Ball, Turnbull made a well-rehearsed speech that viciously mocked Donald Trump, and suggested he was corrupt. The mocking involved an impression of Trump boasting about his poll numbers, including a joke about rigging opinion polls with the help of a “Russian guy”.

Although Turnbull claims that he didn’t intend for the comedy routine to be made public (journalists attending vow not to report on the event), he would’ve known it would leak, and that was his intention from the beginning. In fact, my suspicion is that he recorded and leaked it himself, via a proxy, to ensure everything went as intended. The recipient of the leak, Channel 9’s Laurie Oakes (who didn’t attend the Ball), is a Turnbull ally and could be relied upon to put the video and the story out in exactly the way Turnbull wanted.

Turnbull made it publicly clear before the Ball that his speech was pre-planned. A tweet posted by his office said “Final touches to the @Midwinter_Ball speech” with a photo of him and his wife in front of a computer. This tweet suggests that this attack on Trump wasn’t an off-the-cuff gag after a few too many drinks.

This blatant attack proves that Turnbull’s approach with Trump has never been to tread carefully in order to serve the national interest of Australia, as Turnbull’s left-wing media allies claim. Turnbull has sought to maintain the superficial appearance of public diplomacy toward Trump, whilst taking every opportunity to antagonise him. He is more than willing to hurt Australia if he can hurt Trump in the process.

In March 2018 Turnbull attended the Sydney Mardi Gras, as he does almost every year. There he met pop-star Cher, a notorious Trump-hater who has posted (literally) thousands of anti-Trump tweets. Cher has publicly stated the following opinions of Donald Trump:

She has even posted photo-shopped images of Trump as Hitler.

Turnbull though, decided to take a selfie with her and post it proudly to his social media accounts, saying he was “thrilled”.

Turnbull’s ministers have followed his lead on Trump. For instance, on the 12th of April 2018 Trump indicated his willingness to re-join the Trans-Pacific Partnership on the condition that changes were made so that it wasn’t ripping off American workers. Turnbull’s trade minister, Steve Ciobo, immediately came out saying it won’t happen.

Front page of The Australian newspaper’s website on the 13th of April 2018.

Turnbull’s ministers have also launched explicit personal attacks on Trump. Josh Frydenberg twice called Trump a “dropkick“, although he later recanted; Christopher Pyne called Trump “terrifying“; and Julie Bishop, when asked about Trump’s comment “you’re in such great shape” to the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, slyly retorted with: “It’s a rather interesting comment to make. I wonder if she could say the same of him.”

Bishop though made no such rebuke of Emmanuel Macron when he called Malcolm Turnbull’s wife “delicious“.

Conclusion

Trump clearly places a high value on good personal relationships, and so all of the aforementioned insults would have profound meaning to him. He rightly feels that virtually every country in the world, even allies, are looking to take advantage of the United States whenever they can. Because of Turnbull’s actions, Trump has been forced to put Australia in that category, saying at one press conference:

“We’re negotiating properly with countries, even countries that are allies. A lot of people taking advantage of us, a lot of countries taking advantage of us, really terribly taking advantage of us, we had one instance in Australia, I have a lot of respect for Australia, I love Australia as a country, but we had a problem where, for whatever reason, President Obama said that they were going to take probably well over 1,000 illegal immigrants who were in prisons, and they were going to bring them and take them into this country and I just said ‘Why?..Why are we doing this? What’s the purpose?’. So we’ll see what happens but…previous administration does something you have to respect that…We have some wonderful allies and we’re going to keep it that way, but we have to be treated fairly also.”

That statement is an utter disaster for Australia, and one that would’ve previously been unthinkable. Because of Turnbull’s conniving, the American people – our dear friends who saved our beloved continent from Imperial Japanese occupation in World War 2 – now think Australians are taking advantage of them. Such is the gravity of Turnbull provocations, we are even singled out on that score. This international public relations calamity is alone justification for Turnbull’s immediate expulsion from the Prime Ministership.

Trump bent over backwards to honour the Turnbull-Obama refugee deal because he thought it was a good thing for the Australian people, who he has previously praised. For example, this tweet from 2011:

He has too much on his plate (peace on the Korean peninsula, for example) to study this matter in depth, and realise this was a deal done by a left-wing Australian Prime Minister and a left-wing American President that was not only bad for America, but also bad for Australia, and was deliberately designed to damage him politically.

Although Trump has shown great restraint, and has not sought retaliation for Turnbull’s hostile actions, a couple of things indicate that he won’t be doing anymore special favours for Australia. The public relations facade, that the relationship is fine and there is no lasting damage, is wrong. Firstly there is the lack of a US Ambassador to Australia since Trump took office. In February 2018 Trump announced that Admiral Harry Harris would be the new ambassador but Harris was subsequently re-directed to South Korea. There is also the fact that, although Australia has received an exemption from Trump’s steel tariffs, we will nevertheless have import quotas imposed on us, which means we won’t be able to substantially increase steel exports to the United States.

Had Turnbull’s approach to Trump been co-operative, rather than combative, Australia could’ve gained massively, whilst at the same time helping a close friend and ridding ourselves of a bad deal. To Turnbull though, Australia’s national interest is irrelevant. He cares only about furthering leftist-globalist ideology and, of course, himself.

#

Back to Homepage

References:

1. Turnbull, M. (1993). The Reluctant Republic. (p. 3). Melbourne: William Heinemann Australia.

2. (1988, Nov 20). Business Insider. Sydney Morning Herald, p. 50.

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

4. Turnbull, M. (1993). The Reluctant Republic. (p. 71). Melbourne: William Heinemann Australia.

5. Abbott, T. (1993, Sep 16). The road to a republic shapes as a battle royal. Sydney Morning Herald, p. 15.

##