ARE YOU PREPARED TO MAKE A DECISION?

10 Feb 2022 | SEETV NEWS | Please consider joining our Telegram channel https://t.me/seetvnews

Please subscribe and share

Read the following and listen to both videos for about three minutes each.

“Let’s be blunt; the so-called Digital Identity Bill represents a watershed moment in Australia’s history. We stand between a free personal enterprise future and a digital surveillance age.

If we do nothing to stop this Bill, the Government will sit in the middle of every interaction Australians have with each other and the world.

To achieve this in the same way China does by creating a digital identity that forms a central part of a person’s life. You can call it a “licence to live.” What began with a covert contact tracing, vaccine passports, QR Check-in, soon to be formalised – an inescapable digital identity.

It signals a complete end of consumer privacy, the end of citizenship and a Big Brother digital age that treats Australians as products rather than free human beings. The Government intends to build a complete digital record of every Australian to be shared and used.

Our medical history, shopping preferences, who we associate with, whether our choice is so-called green, social security, veterans services, travel records, website viewing, employment status, and social media comments. Everything will go on the record and be available to any large corporation that can pay for the access. This was orchestrated by a Federal Liberal National Government who previously but distortingly called it a Human-Centering Digital Identity”.

“The World Economic Forum is meant to be dismissed as a so-called conspiracy theory. Why is the Federal Liberal Party copying its policies directly from the World Economic Forum’s global digital identity project, if that’s the case?

It’s designed to shift the economy from private ownership into what the World Economic Forum calls an access model. You will own nothing and rent goods and services from the world’s billionaires and billionaire corporations. In other words, the role of the digital identity bill is life via subscription.

Without assets and ownership, Australians will have no power over the Government nor any power over the corporations. They want to control people’s lives. In their eyes, this will help the world live sustainably, but in reality, it is a form of slavery to a closed-loop economy where you have less, and the rich have more, way more.

The Liberals have already spent a Billion dollars of our taxpayer dollars on their digital economy strategy for 2030.

All they need to make the Global Socialist’s dream a reality is to pass the so-called trusted Digital Identity Bill”.

Also, watch another three-minute video.

Jacinda Ardern flees public ‘bail-in’ debate (Scott Morrison just lies)

31 January 2022 | Source: Australian Citizens Party | Please share and subscribe - Join our telegram channel https://t.me/seetvnews

NZ’s Ardern government has dropped a planned bail-in law, to avoid a backlash from an angry public who won’t want their deposits stolen; Kiwis and Aussies should demand their governments jettison all bail-in powers.

New Zealand’s Ardern government has confirmed a political truth: no government can enact “bail-in” laws, which give authorities the power to confiscate bank customers’ savings deposits to prop up failing banks in a financial crisis, in full public view. In April 2021 the NZ Cabinet announced it would enact so-called “statutory” bail-in, meaning legislation that lays out exactly how a bail-in would work, in accordance with International Monetary Fund (IMF) requirements. The statutory bail-in powers were to be included in NZ’s landmark Deposit Takers Act, in consultation phase until 21 February, which would overhaul regulation for deposit-taking financial institutions, and include a deposit insurance scheme for the first time, guaranteeing NZ$100,000 per account. However, in October, the Cabinet quietly dropped the statutory bail-in provisions, fearing its legislative reform may fail to pass if it had to engage in a public debate about why citizens should be happy to lose their savings to save banks.

NZ already has bail-in powers, but these are directions powers of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), called Open Bank Resolution (OBR). RBNZ is remarkably transparent about how OBR will be used to freeze and confiscate deposits—in fact, OBR is the most transparent bail-in scheme in the world, with a large colour graphic on RBNZ’s website explaining how it would work—but in a way that only finance geeks would be aware of. When RBNZ devised its bail-in powers in the mid-2000s, nobody in NZ’s general public noticed.

Bail-in is a global banking regulation policy developed by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland after the 2008 global financial crisis. Instead of demanding the banks end the reckless gambling in toxic derivatives that caused the GFC, by reintroducing Glass-Steagall powers to separate banks with deposits from speculative investment banking, the ex-investment bankers at the FSB decided to put unsuspecting bank depositors on the hook for bank losses. The FSB directed all nations to comply with its bail-in policy, called Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes.

RBNZ’s OBR was actually ahead of the curve, so RBNZ replied to the FSB that its existing powers already complied (later the IMF said all countries should enact statutory bail-in powers). Other countries enacted bail-in powers, including the USA, UK and EU, and Canada, but they all had one thing in common: nobody knew about it—there was no public debate! Only two countries had public debates about bail-in before legislation was enacted, India and Australia, and both in 2017. When India announced bail-in legislation in 2017, the public backlash was so severe the government quickly dropped it. In Australia, the Citizens Party had led a massive campaign to expose and oppose bail-in since 2013, when the bail-in of bank deposits in Cyprus banks had first revealed the policy to the world, so in 2017 then-Treasurer Scott Morrison had to sneak it through.

Late on a Friday afternoon in August 2017, so nobody would notice, Morrison’s Treasury released an exposure draft of a vaguely-titled bill, the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017. The Citizens Party noticed, however, and detected in the bill a broadly-worded provision creating a loophole that could be used to bail in deposits in a crisis. The Citizens Party’s intense mobilisation against the bill, which coincided with the uproar over the banks that forced Malcolm Turnbull to call the banking royal commission, led to an inquiry chaired by “Senator for bankers” Jane Hume, which denied the law could be used to bail in deposits. But when One Nation Senators informed the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Mathias Cormann, on the eve of the Senate debate on the bill, that they intended to move an amendment to close the loophole, the government pulled a dirty trick. Cormann offered to have Treasury lawyers proof-read One Nation’s amendment, and the next day, while the One Nation Senators were waiting to hear back from Treasury, the government and Labor Party snuck the bill through the Senate with only eight Senators present in the chamber and with only a vote “on the voices”, not a formal division that would require all Senators to be present to vote.

Ever since that fateful day of 14 February 2018—the St. Valentine’s Day massacre of Australians’ savings—the government has continued to deny its law could be used to steal deposits. Moreover, in a 2020 Senate inquiry on a bill by One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts to amend the 2018 law to again close the loophole to exclude deposits, the government doubled down on its denial, by claiming that bailing in deposits would be unthinkable, because it would badly destabilise the banking system. Yet the Australian government has never commented on the fact that many other jurisdictions do have deposit bail-in powers, including NZ—the nation closest to Australia with the most similar financial system, as NZ’s major banks are owned by Australia’s Big Four banks. It hasn’t commented on these other jurisdictions, because its denials aren’t genuine; it’s desperately trying to suppress a public backlash.

Now that the NZ government has fled a public bail-in debate, Aussies and Kiwis need to realise their political power, and demand their governments drop all bail-in powers completely. Kiwis should start a campaign to force Ardern to make RBNZ abandon Open Bank Resolution; Aussies should demand the government pass Senator Roberts’ amendment to close up the deposit loophole in the 2018 law. (Treasurer Josh Frydenberg promised to negotiate a resolution with Roberts, but has dragged his feet.)

With inflation rearing its ugly head, putting upward pressure on interest rates that would smash borrowers and put the banks that are over-exposed to the housing bubble at risk of failing, it is urgent that bail-in be dropped—now!

Westfarmers Bow down to Victorian Mandate in Violation of Law.

27 Nov 2021 | Michael Moore | micheal.moore@seetvnews.com

Please subscribe and share: Follow us on Telegram https://t.me/seetvnews

I wrote to Westfarmers who own:

KMark

Target

Officeworks

Bunnings

Kiing Gee

Hard Yakka

Stubbies

GotStock

Among other companies, pointing out that it is illegal to segregate and refuse entry to anyone not showing their medical status.

My email to them and their response is below.

My email to Westfarmers:

Sir,

I can no longer support or patronise KMart, Target, Bunnings Office Works, or any other of your outlets due to the following violations of Federal Legislation.

Apart from the fact that this is un Australian it is also illegal. The Constitution clearly states that where there is a conflict between State and Federal Law, the Federal law takes precedence. By barring people who have not been vaccinated or even refusing to give their vaccination status business are committing a felony.

“106. Saving of Constitutions

The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.”

"109. Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid”

Federal Laws include:

Privacy Act of 1988 Section 94H

“Section 94H of the Privacy Act 1988 states:

A person commits an offence if the person requires another person to: download COVIDSafe to a communication device; or. have COVIDSafe in operation on a communication device; or. consent to uploading COVID app data from a communication device to the National COVIDSafe Data Store.”

Federal Biosecurity Act of 2015

Section 60 and 61 State:

“For the Government or a business to mandate masks (section 88), PCR tests (section 90) or vaccinations (section 92), they need to impose on you a ‘human biosecurity control order (HBCO)’ (section 60). A Human Biosecurity Control Order (HBCO) is also required to enforce lockdowns and isolations. INSTRUCTIONS If anyone attempts to intimidate you to partake in the above actions, ask them for a ‘HUMAN BIOSECURITY CONTROL ORDER’. Without that, refuse to comply. If they do present one, at least you’re forcing them to take another step and if enough people ask for this, the administration of it might not be worth the hassle for them.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Biosecurity Act 2015 - https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00127 Biosecurity Act 2015 (Section 60 – Human Biosecurity Control Order) - http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba2015156/s60.html Subsection (2) - A human biosecurity control order may be imposed on an individual only if the officer is satisfied that: (a) the individual has one or more signs or symptoms of a listed human disease; or (b) the individual has been exposed to: (i) a listed human disease; or (ii) another individual who has one or more signs or symptoms of a listed human disease; or (c) the individual has failed to comply with an entry requirement in subsection 44(6)

RELEVANT SECTIONS BIOSECURITY ACT 2015 SECTION 88 - MASKS http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba2015156/s88.html An individual may be required by a human biosecurity control order to wear either or both specified clothing and equipment that is designed to prevent a disease from emerging, establishing itself or spreading.

BIOSECURITY ACT 2015 SECTION 90 - PCR TESTS Undergoing an examination An individual may be required by a human biosecurity control order to undergo, at a specified medical facility, a specified kind of examination relating to determining the presence in the individual of: (a) the listed human disease specified in the order; and (b) any other listed human disease.

BIOSECURITY ACT 2015 SECTION 92 - RECEIVING VACCINATIONS http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba2015156/s92.html An individual may be required by a human biosecurity control order to receive, at a specified medical facility: (a) a specified vaccination; or (b) a specified form of treatment; in order to manage the listed human disease specified in the order, and any other listed human disease.

Demanding vaccination status and refusing entry into a public place such as a restaurant, hair salon or retail establishment contravenes the above Federal Acts and is therefore A CRIME.

As a bona fide Australian Business we do not support criminal organisations or those organisations that practice criminal activities by reason of violation of Federal Law.

Yours,

Westfarmers response was as follows:

“We appreciate your concerns, but this is a State Government requirement in Victoria and our retail businesses are required by law to comply, because they have been deemed by Government to be “non essential”. While we don’t agree with this categorisation, there are significant fines for businesses if they don’t comply. We are sorry for the inconvenience. If you wish to pursue further you should raise it with your local member of parliament.”

T 08 9327 4211

Wesfarmers Limited

Level 14, Brookfield Place Tower 2, 123 St Georges Terrace

Perth Western Australia 6000

www.wesfarmers.com.au