click on the logo or on this link to go to Broadlandestates website


 click on the logo or here to go to the liberty NRG website

''Marine Le Pen: Restoring the sovereignty of French people, just as Brexit is for the British and Trump for the Americans....''

Professor David Flint
Alan Jones talks to the academic and author about this weekend’s French presidential election
Alan Jones
Friday 5 May 2017

Only a President Le Pen can save France

Spectator Australia

6 May 2017

If the voters obey the elites and elect Emmanuel Macron, the Fifth Republic may well be doomed, which could have as great an impact on Western civilisation as the revolution did.

France is approaching one of her regular crises− five within living memory − where her constitutional system is in danger of being swept away, the consequence of putting her revolution on a pedestal. In the time we evolved from a penal colony into one of the world's oldest continuing democracies, France has been an absolute monarchy, a revolutionary state, five republics, two empires, two constitutional monarchies and a fascist dictatorship.

The Fifth Republic may well fall under a President Macron for the reason that he offers no real solution to the economic crisis which is ravaging swathes of the country with unconscionable levels of youth unemployment, nor to the bloody terrorist war now being waged on the soil of France. In an opinion piece in Le Monde on the bloody 2016 Berlin Christmas market terrorist outrage, Macron recited the predictable mantra "We are all Berliners now" and then lavishly praised Chancellor Merkel for having saved the EU's ''collective dignity'' in rolling over to the uninvited entry of over a million immigrants − mainly young men of military age. If this is recalled before the second round, he will lose even more the confidence of la France profonde.

While Macron endorses open borders and submission to Brussels, what else does this millionaire banker and recent socialist minister believe?

Last year he was in favour of exploiting fossil fuels for energy; this year he's opposed. Last year he was in favour of decriminalising cannabis; four months later he was opposed. Last year he did not believe ''for a second'' in governments using ordonnances to ram through legislation without debate; five months later he proposes one. In December 2014 he explains "Why I am a socialist"; in August 2016, he declares "I am not a socialist". His campaign manager says this is because he is ''intellectually from the left'' and ''hasn't distanced himself from the Socialist party''. So much for Macron campaigning as a centrist.

When Macron, who has never held elected office and lacks firm principles, came in just ahead of Mme Le Pen in the first round, he delivered an extraordinarily complacent speech as if he had been elected president. Then he was off to an elite victory dinner at the fashionable brasserie, La Rotonde. He forgot what le tout Paris did not, the outrage which followed Nicolas Sarkozy's elite victory dinner at Fouquet's after he defeated socialist Ségolène Royal, former partner of President Hollande and mother of his four children. De Gaulle's presidential monarchy would be wasted on Macron who will be a mere satrap of Brussels, Berlin, banking and the elites. His only strong words seem to be in threatening retribution to the British for daring to vote for Brexit.

Mme Le Pen has run rings around him in her campaign. When he visited a factory in Northern France to be closed down and moved to Poland she came to the factory gates and announced that the manufacturers would face a hefty tariff on exports to France. The workers cheered her and booed him. Unlike the situation faced by her father in 2002, not all of those defeated in the first round oppose her with the gaullist Nicolas Dupont-Aignan agreeing to be her prime minister.

In addition, her supporters are probably more loyal than Macron's, highly relevant in a country where voting is not compulsory. Serge Galam, from the prestigious Sciences Po university, has attempted to measure this and concludes that even if early polling suggesting Macron is ahead 60:40% holds, '' differentiated abstention'', could still result in a Le Pen victory. For example, if 90% of people who said they would vote for Mme Le Pen do so but only 65% of Macron's do, Mme Le Pen would win with a score of 50.07%.

Mme Le Pen offers France the only hope of regaining her status as a great independent sovereign state, with the power to determine, as homme d'État John Howard famously put it, who will come into their country and the terms on which they will come. She promises to withdraw from the maze of EU rules which are deindustrialising the country, leaving massive unemployment in its wake. She alone promises to dissolve the no-go caliphates under sharia law that surround Paris and other cities and from which have come a series of terrorist outrages. For this, she will not hesitate to use the vast powers of the gaullist presidential monarchy, including the command-in-chief, all of which would be wasted on Macron . Presiding over the cabinet she chooses, with her Prime Minister, she will exercise a wide law making power more akin to that of the ancien régime to hand down decrees or executive orders. The Le Pen administration will be able to ram through bills in areas reserved for acts of parliament without debate through the use of the gaullist ordonnance, with a recalcitrant assembly knowing that; unlike President Trump, this elected presidential monarch may even dissolve the Assembly, whenever she wishes, and call new elections. In the face of further terrorism, it will be not at all surprising if a President Le Pen were to be only the second president (after de Gaulle of course) to use the extraordinary powers, pouvoirs exceptionnels, if terrorism continues, or as is possible, becomes even worse. If in her opinion, the institutions of the republic, the independence of the nation and the integrity of its territory are under grave and immediate threat and that the proper functioning of the constitutional governmental authorities is interrupted, she is empowered to take the measures she judges are demanded by these circumstances.

To her supporters, only Le Pen can save France from civil disorder and economic ruin. Macron is very much the preferred candidate of the elites, who want him only because he will change little.

[David Flint and Marine Le Pen hold Master of Laws degrees from the Sorbonne Law School (University Panthéon-Assas (Paris II). This comment is to appear in Spectator Australia 6 May 2017. It was the subject ofinterviews on 2GB, 4BC and the Macquarie Media Network with Michael McLaren on 2 May at http://www.2gb.com/…/david-flint-maps-le-pens-path-to-vict…/ Mike Williams on 29 April 2017t http://www.2gb.com/…/professor-david-flint-2017-french-ele…/ and Alan Jones on 5 May 2017https://omny.fm/…/the-alan-jones-brea…/professor-david-flint] 

Governing for headlines and opinion polls
David Flint

26 April 2017

Spectator Australia

You would think that after imposing what they had promised not to impose, a new tax on superannuation, or the backpacker tax, the Turnbull government would have at last learnt its lesson. Governing contrary to the principles of the ruling party or where self-interest is the dominant purpose, for example, to create media headlines and influence the next opinion poll, is wrong and does not go unpunished.

Take one example, the superannuation tax. The government promised never to impose it. Moreover, it was completely unnecessary. The build-up of very large superannuation funds was already a thing of the past. It had been stopped over the years by the increasing limits placed on contributions. There was no problem.

One of the stated purposes of the new tax went completely against the principles of the Liberal Party. This was to take money from savers and redistribute this as a gift – not welfare – to those who had not saved. Moreover, it left the politicians’ platinum-plated and gold-plated schemes producing magnificent returns in place, supplemented by two institutions created by the politicians. One is “jobs for the boys (and girls)”. The second is allowing what is forbidden in some countries, moving directly into the lucrative profession of lobbying politicians. Now, what is lobbying? It doesn’t require great skills. All the lobbyist has to do is secure taxpayer funded government contracts by opening the doors of politicians he or she already knows and who of course will be potential candidates themselves for future careers as a lobbyist. This is particularly questionable where a minister awards lucrative contracts without tender or an open process to a lobbyist’s client, particularly when that lobbyist is a powerbroker who plays a key role in preselecting new politicians in the minister’s party.

In the meantime, the unintended consequences of the new superannuation tax include discouraging people, young and old, from investing in superannuation. This is because of the entirely justified suspicion that politicians from both sides will change the rules. Another unintended consequence is that the appallingly complicated new rules adopted to levy the new tax create significant additional compliance costs for everyone.

Many in the coalition’s base saw the new tax as being targeted against it. The result was that many party members went on strike both, declining financial contributions or working during the election. They and many coalition supporters decided that, contrary to expert advice, they did in fact have somewhere else to go. A significant number gave their first preferences to other parties. The superannuation tax has been a disaster for the Liberal Party.

Then came another act of unbelievable foolishness on the part of the government. This was their decision to go ahead and try to seize almost one third of the miniscule earnings of young foreign backpackers. The services of these young people had become necessary because the politicians have, mainly as a vote buying exercise, trained a number of young Australians not to work but to live off welfare. With all their vast resources, including their armies of advisors, the government seemed appreciate that backpackers are mobile and not bound to come to Australia. With the harvest threatened, the government eventually compromised on the level of the tax, although various ministers had previously declared they would never do this. In an act of unbelievable meanness, they still managed to steal most of the young backpackers superannuation.

After this, we would have thought that before rushing into some new decision they would think first. But then, to play the powerful political leader to the media, the Prime Minister announced the dramatic ending of the 457 visa scheme, without first ensuring that there were no unintended consequences. Surely by now they had realised that the way to do this would have, at least in the grey areas, to release a discussion paper setting out the options. Above all, there should be an immediate review involving public consultation of the size of the immigration intake mainly into overcrowded Sydney and Melbourne, as Tony Abbott proposes.

The business columns of the newspapers are now full of examples of 457 visas no longer being available for the most ideal of potential immigrants, workers with those skills, which are desperately needed here. These are neither the unassimilable nor the welfare immigrants, nor the chain immigration brought in merely because they are related to other immigrants. Of course the rorts should have gone and gone earlier, but the overall review and the 457 grey areas should have been put out for discussion to avoid the number of unintended consequences which are now emerging. But no, the Prime Minister had to show himself as a determined and powerful leader who gets things done.

The universities and the IP sector are up in arms. In The Australian on Anzac Day, the respected finance columnist, Robert Gottliebsen, writes about a firm which had been unsuccessfully advertising for a specialised international property lawyer for 15 months, someone no doubt essential for the development of new technologies and ventures in Australia. They could not find such a person in Australia but eventually found one overseas, someone clearly eligible for a 457 visa. Believing there was no problem, the person selected and her husband resigned their jobs to come to Australia. But suddenly, this occupation was “mysteriously… removed from the list of 457 occupations.” She can no longer come to Australia. He gives other examples, as do many other reputable business journalists.

The point is that immigration overall has to be subject to a root and branch review involving the people, rather than the Prime Minister playing around at the edges to impress the commentariat.

There is one thing tragically absent from too many of the decisions of the Turnbull government. It’s plain down-to-earth common sense. Will they never learn? They will only if they decide to govern in the national interest and according to the principles on which they were elected, not for headlines and to influence the next opinion poll.

[This comment was the subject of an interview with Mike Williams on 2GB, 4BC and the Macquarie Media Network on 29 April 2017. The podcast may be heard at http://www.2gb.com/podcast/professor-david-flint-2017-french-election/]

The Human Rights Commission Must Go
David Flint

Spectator Australia 1 April 2017


Described by its leading victim, Bill Leak, as a ‘rogue totalitarian unit’, the Human Rights Commission is an ugly stain on our democracy. Tony Abbott is right; it must go. The long and expensive harassment of those entirely innocent QUT students, the gagging of Andrew Bolt and the pursuit of Leak are only the tip of the iceberg. Underneath, the chilling of free speech has been spreading, like some plague bacillus, into the editorial offices and work places of the nation. Meanwhile, serious racism continues with impunity, with synagogues and Jewish kindergartens forced to operate behind high security and Australians forced out of the ghettos.

Activated now only by race and minority religion (principally Islam), Labor is planning a bewildering range of triggers under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to control speech about sex, age, sexual preference, gender fluidity, disability, and same-sex marriage. Self-selected leaders of identity ‘communities’, real and fictional, will be thus empowered, with Labor anticipating rewards at the polls.

Labor is consistent, having spectacularly tried to control the press recently. Unlike Abbott’s welcome call to stop funding the HRC, the Turnbull government’s belated minimalist reform to 18C shows a Coalition in lockstep with the Left. Its new test of harassment, according to the standards of the reasonable person, will still be decided by a judge. Knowing what most defamation judges think is reasonable editorial behaviour, serious journalists will be especially fearful; without a jury, rulings similar to that in the Bolt case can be expected.

Apart from introducing juries, as Neil Brown proposed here, the Keating government’s sneaky extension of 18C to Islam must go. Why should jokes about Halal food, or protests about building mosques be actionable but not a photograph of a crucifix in urine?

The inclusion of minority religions was effected not by the words of 18C, but by an Explanatory Memorandum, an obscure device containing riding orders to the judges. If the politicians didn’t read this and relied only on what the minister said in his second reading speech, they would have been in the dark. He neglected to reveal that Islam was covered too.

The Explanatory Memorandum says common descent is not necessary to share an ‘ethnic origin’, a synonym for ‘race’ in 18C. Sharing some other characteristic, such as a religion, is enough, provided it is a minority religion. The Muslim religion is mentioned, not so surprising with Labor having already demonstrated its obsession with the Muslim vote by going so far as to remove their Minister for Immigration when he was about to do his duty and deport the imam Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly. If the politicians didn’t read the Explanatory Memorandum, the judges did, including Justice Bromberg in the Bolt case. As did the ACT Human Rights Commissioner in a case concerning protests about the building of a mosque.david flint

The fact is that 18C, the RDA and the formation of the HRC are not supported by the text of the Constitution as understood by a reasonable person at the time it was adopted or amended. The contrasting claim that the Constitution is a ‘living, breathing document’, therefore meaning whatever the judges say it means, is an invention of the American elites and was rejected in the recent presidential election.

The Federal Parliament is a parliament of strictly limited powers. The founders and the people intended that all powers not listed in the Constitution are for the states and the people. The one federal power about race is to make laws for the ‘people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.’ Originally, Aborigines were excluded. But despite Menzies’ warning that giving Canberra power to legislate with respect to the Aboriginal people would achieve nothing but the creation of a bureaucratic monstrosity, the politicians unanimously argued in the successful 1967 referendum that doing this would greatly benefit the Aboriginal people. It didn’t; the result is precisely the disaster Menzies predicted. Now the elites have decided on yet another silver bullet, ‘constitutional recognition’. They’re also calling for the repeal of the same race power they so lovingly endorsed in 1967 but which is now so unfashionable.

In any event, the constitutional authority claimed for 18C and the HRC is not the race power. It is the ‘external affairs’ power, despite the fact that this was never intended to be used as authority to legislate in areas reserved to the states and the people. However, in a series of cases, the High Court has gradually ratcheted up the power until it now means that whenever the government ratifies some treaty on some matter, Canberra has the right to legislate for this, even in strictly state matters. As the former Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs warned, this threatens the very basis of federalism. The judges have thus given the politicians the keys to the Constitution without the people ever agreeing or even being asked.

18C and the HRC are examples of what has been a coup to centralise enormous and quite dangerous powers in Canberra. This impacts in many areas of our national life, even in the skyrocketing price of electricity and the continuing campaign against our farmers. By entering into a vast range of treaties under UN auspices, Canberra has been able to stop the states building dams, to turn farms into useless carbon sinks and to take water from our farmers, despite the Constitution guaranteeing them reasonable use of our rivers for conservation and irrigation. At the same time the politicians have performed poorly in fulfilling their core constitutional duties, such as defence and immigration.

The best hope of curing such illegitimate exercises of power, restoring the federation and making the politicians truly accountable is to follow the way we federated.

We should be invited to elect an unpaid convention to review the Constitution, with the guarantee that after the politicians have had an opportunity to comment, their final recommendations be referred to the people.

[The proposed changes to section 18C was the subject of a series of interviews on 2GB, 4BC and the Macquarie Broadcasting Network in 2017 on

2 April with Mike Williams: http://www.2gb.com/podcast/professor-david-flint-5/

26 March with Mike Williams: http://www.2gb.com/podcast/professor-david-flint-4/

22 March with Luke Grant: http://www.2gb.com/podcast/david-flint-on-section-18c/

19 March with Mike Williams: http://www.2gb.com/podcast/david-flint/

15 March with Luke Grant: http://www.2gb.com/podcast/professor-david-flint-3/

5 March with Mike Williams: http://www.2gb.com/podcast/professor-david-flint-2/ ]

Our Failing Political Class

David Flint

Spectator Australia, Flat White, 21 March 2017

Too many problems in modern Australia country have been either created by our ruling political class or made significantly worse by them.

In the meantime, there is much excitement in government circles this week over the release of the latest Newspoll. The two-party preferred vote has risen from the previous poll finding of 45:55, in favour of Labor, to 48:52, still in favour of Labor.

Another regular poll, the Essential Report, has just found the 2PP to be 45:55, down from 47:53 in its latest effort. It should be recalled that the 2PP in the 2016 election when the Turnbull government lost most of the gains Tony Abbott had accrued over two elections and barely scraped in was 50.4:49.6.

Although Tony Abbott’s Newspoll record was one of the two grounds Malcolm Turnbull solemnly cited to the nation as his justification for backstabbing his Prime Minister, he has since declared that polls are not a reliable indicator of government performance.

So opinion polls are not a reliable indicator of the Turnbull government’s performance but were always a reliable indicator of Abbott government’s performance.

In any event, our ruling parties no longer operate on the principles on which their parties were founded, including crucially in the case of the Liberal Party, freedom of speech limited government and self-reliance.

Worse, government policy today is too often not evidence-based. Rather it is directed by some or other secular dogma, as is so much of modern society. Failure to observe any of those secular dogmas results in findings of heresy similar to those which came out at the time of the Inquisition. Today, such findings can be followed by harassment, intimidation, threats and even violence if not legal action, for example through and even invited by the Human Rights Commission.

One of the most serious problems today flowing from a secular dogma is the skyrocketing price of and the underlying reliability of energy, especially electricity and gas. Not only is this making life difficult for rank-and -file Australians, it is leading to the deindustrialisation of Australia and damaging agriculture. The basis of this is the secular dogma that the theory of anthropogenic global warming, as enunciated by the United Nations, must be accepted as infallible on the basis that ”the science is settled”. The corollary is that governments can and will act to reduce global warming.

The resulting policy of the Turnbull government, their Renewable Energy Target of 23 per cent, is the principal cause of the closing and destruction of coal-fired stations, the skyrocketing cost of electricity and the likely collapse of the market. His latest $2 billion silver bullet, pumping Snowy River water uphill to produce electricity when it comes downhill, will apparently use more electricity that it will produce.

Fortunately for the Turnbull government, Labor’s policy nationally, in South Australia, Victoria and Queensland is significantly worse, if that is possible. But to demonstrate that Labor politicians are at least cunning, the West Australian Labor Party dropped a similar policy no doubt to assure its victory in the recent State election.

It is doubtful that the political class actually believe in their anthropogenic global warming dogma. If they did, their behaviour is extremely hypocritical. As they believe CO2 emissions are lethal to civilisation, it is surely incumbent on them to have the smallest CO2 footprints in the nation. In fact, they probably have footprints many times that of the rank-and-file. They make no attempt whatsoever to avoid CO2 emissions through for example avoiding travel, air-conditioning and so forth. Most travel by politicians, especially international travel, is usually unnecessary. The decisions for international conferences and the like are usually decided in advance, the actual meeting being merely a photo opportunity for personal prestige and political advantage.

As to the various governments’ gas policies, these have veered between a total and unnecessary ban to forcing mining involving fracking on farmers on prime agricultural land who fear for the aquifers. Except in Western Australia, none has adopted anything like a policy reserving gas for the domestic market.

If we look at other areas of government policy, education, law and order and immigration, there has been a distinct failure in maintaining the standards of the past while at the same time significantly increasing government expenditure. All are dominated by secular dogmas which must be believed.

Secular dogma even extends to the welfare of the indigenous people. Notwithstanding the very substantial actions by the Federal government in this area, including enormous budgetary provisions, we are required to believe that after previous silver bullets which were to solve the problem – granting legislative power in Aboriginal affairs to the Commonwealth Parliament, the Mabo decision − the latest dogma which must be received as being the solution to the problem is the recognition of the indigenous people in the constitution and/or the entry into treaties with the indigenous people. In relation to constitutional recognition, although a significant group of non-voting corporations have indicated their strong support, it is unknown precisely what the proposed change to the constitution will be.

Even in one fundamental area, that in relation to our basic freedoms and especially to freedom of speech, all principal parties have failed miserably. Speech is clearly less free in Australia than it was in the past – we need only consider the cases against Andrew Bolt, the late and great Bill Leak and the group of completely and totally innocent Queensland University of Technology students. It is not that long ago that the Gillard government attempted to institute a rigorous control of the press in Australia. The government is scarcely presenting a united front with its proposals to change the Racial Discrimination Act. State Liberal leaders have previously declared their ranks opposed without even putting the matter to their party rooms.

The political class is even intent on changing such a basic institution as the family, without the approval of the people. This has now also become a secular dogma notwithstanding the fact that the clear extent of the marriage power in the constitution is to allow the parliament to legislate with respect to traditional marriage. In other words, if the constitution is to mean what it meant when the people adopted it or amended it, the parliament acting can only effect any change with the people.

When a gentle debate on this between two members of parliament took place recently in association with a brewery, the brewery was threatened with its business is being seriously damaged just as was Sydney’s Mercure hotel for daring to rent rooms for a meeting of Christians supporting traditional marriage and just as Cory Bernardi’s office was ransacked. All of these actions, unacceptable in a civilised democratic society, have been allowed to proceed with impunity.

Those who dared to hold a view different from the decreed secular dogma are treated as heretics who should be at least isolated and if possible punished.


Our political class is failing the country.





 Stephen Wade, 

 Shadow Minister for Health SA.


Dear Stephen,


1. Kalimna could be changed from Hostel care to a nursing home for around $290,000.

2. The main office building (10a) will have its 1 (one) respite bed removed & be reclassified (class 5)

    Office building will need no building work required. 

3. The Governments contracted building certified survey report of November 2014 stated that from his

    observations on site at the hostel that the facility could be reopened as a class 9a building, ( nursing home

    - primarily for high care needs as well as residences with lower care needs).

4. The Governments estimate over $1,000,000 to reopen Kalimna is based on converting all 3 building to class 

    9c, with 1.8 metre hallways.

    This is completely un-necessary and was not even mentioned as a necessary option in the November 2014 

    building certifiers survey report, allegedly paid for by the Government.

5. There is approximately $750,000 in the H.A.C. fund.

6. There was approximately $135,000 put aside for the sprinkler system that was never installed.

7 Strathalbyn would be entitled to at least $100,000 out of the H.A.C. fund, so add the $100.000 from H.A.C. fund

   and $135,000 for the sprinkler system equals $235,000, I am sure the community could rally and come up with

   the balance required to make Kalimna compliant.

8. We the people will not back down on this very important issue.

Yours sincerely


Peter Manuel

0400 915 083

emailed by Yvette Holdsworth 

0400 266 017



Meeting from Strathalbyn Town Hall Meeting to discuss the closure

of Kalimna Aged Care Facility in Strathalbyn





Malcolm: If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

David Flint

Mike Williams Talks to Professor David Flint- January 4th


2 January 2017 

The only reason  you'd change a constitution as good as Australia's would be to improve it. The worst reason is that something has been  imported. Just as our language is, so is most of the  constitution.

Instead of calling for some republic - and then not even knowing what sort of republic he wants - Malcolm Turnbull should be leading the nation in finding a solution to our increasing problems.

The fact is we're already a republic, a crowned republic .  In  1999, Turnbull  championed an extreme version of a politicians' republic, so bad it was  condemned by a team  of constitutional experts  at a  NSW University  forum.  It was the only known republic  where it'd  be easier for the PM  to sack the President that his driver. At a debate against Turnbull  in Corowa in 1999, I confided to my debating team-mate, independent republican Ted Mack – one of our most honest politicians  − that  I'd been warning  the ARM  their  model could never protect us from a dangerously authoritarian  government. He said ''They know that. That's precisely what they want ''. 

Turnbull's fundamental problem is  the  one that perplexed him  in the 90s - finding a plausible reason  for  this momentous,  complicated , expensive and  divisive change. The ARM had been  looking increasingly foolish for  making ridiculous claims about  their  republic, including that it  would  reduce unemployment, improve trade, stop the brain drain, raise spirits and−  I'm not joking−  increase immigration. They eventually hit on a diplomatic term  so obscure  it wasn't  even in the  Macquarie dictionary. They claimed that only in a republic could we have  an Australian as head of state.  Returning to this at the ARM dinner, Turnbull curiously forgot  his carefully worded  excuse for being a no-show at the June ceremony when our  Vietnam War dead were brought back home. He explained  that  the government had been  well represented there by the Australian head of state, the Governor-General. Not surprising − that's what we've been  telling foreign governments for years. 

And it's not as if there aren't far more important issues  to resolve. It's not well understood that these are the direct result of the prevailing and perverse  interpretation of our Constitution.  This is better understood in the US where Donald Trump accepts  the common sense principle that the  constitution has the meaning  reasonable people intended at the time it was adopted.  So he's promised not to appoint  activist judges who insist on changing the constitution against the people's wishes.

It's fundamental to our constitution that  Canberra can acquire additional  powers only  if the people agree.  But when the people kept on saying no, the judges just reinterpreted the Constitution. The result&