Australian Liberty Alliance

On October 20, 2015 in Perth the new conservative political party the Australian Liberty Alliance was launched. Some 200 invited guests heard Dutch MP Geert Wilders and other speakers explain why the ALA was formed and what it hopes to achieve in Australia in the months and years ahead.

Because of the usual intimidation and potential threats of violence, the launch had to be done secretly (once a venue was finally found) to prevent those who would seek to disrupt and shut down the event from doing so. And to keep the mainstream media from misrepresenting and maligning the fledgling party, the event was media-free.

The keynote address was by Wilders who once again was surrounded by his contingent of 24-7 security guards, and who once again had some problems getting in to Australia. He shared about the situation in Europe, with the loss of freedoms, and the rise of sharia law and Islamic intolerance.

alaHe especially highlighted the current turmoil due to open-ended and uncritical asylum seeker and refugee policies. The open-border policies are causing great damage in many part of Europe. For example, he mentioned that a full three-quarters of Holland’s 1 million Muslims believe that those Muslims who go and fight in Syria are heroes.

He warned Australia not to proceed down the path of Holland and Europe. He also spoke highly of the new ALA and mentioned how encouraged he was to see such a party emerge at such a time as this. He encouraged Australian patriots to not be silent and passive, and encouraged those who value freedom to take a strong stand here.

At the launch the first three ALA Senate candidates were announced:
-Kirralie Smith, from NSW, founder and director of Halal Choices;
-Bernard Gaynor, from Qld, former ADF member and tireless culture warrior;
-Debbie Robinson, from WA, president of the Q Society.

More candidates will be announced in the days ahead. While the mainstream media is already referring to the ALA as merely an anti-Islam party, there is much more to it than this one emphasis. On their website they lay out 20 “Key Policy Areas”:

Smarter Smaller Government
Integration over Separation
Stop the Islamisation of Australia
Real Reconciliation: No place for Apartheid in Australia.
For a Liveable Australia
Affordable Energy for a Cleaner Australia
Focus on Citizenship and Community Spirit
Improving Health Care and Ageing in Dignity
Smarter Learning: Brighter Future
Freedom of Information
A Free Press and ‘Back to Basics’ for Public Broadcasting
Fairer Trade and Securing Australian Jobs
Restoring Civil Society
Advancing the Natural Family
Protecting More Than Our Environment
Foreign Affairs
Defending Australia
No Need for Constitutional Change
Broader and Fairer Taxes means less Taxes for All
The Controversial Debates

Let me just briefly discuss a few of these areas. This in part is what is said about family policy:

We consider the natural family to be the primary building block of humanity and the foundation of civil society. The viability and well-being of families, together with tackling domestic violence, are therefore of primary concern for us.
We understand and respect that some Australians prefer to live in same-sex partnerships. We will combat negative stereotyping and mitigate financial disadvantages where they may still exist for homosexual couples.
However, we reject the notion that homosexual partnerships are the same as marriage and natural families. The right of children to grow up in a natural family must remain protected and ‘alternative sexual orientations’ shall not be actively promoted in schools and public institutions.

Not a bad start I think. But it does go on to talk about financial and tax policies for different sized families and so on, which not all pro-family advocates would necessarily be happy with. But I will defer discussion on some of these finer points of policy.

The last item on the list refers to the crucial life issues of abortion and euthanasia. Pro-lifers will not be fully happy of course with what is said here, although it could be worse:

Right to Life: We believe elected representatives of our party should decide these questions based on their own conscience. However, if called upon to take an in-principle position we find an abortion should not be performed after the first trimester unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Euthanasia: While we find an adult has every right to terminate his own life, we hold that another person’s immediate involvement in the act of ending a human life is legally not justifiable. To be asked to intentionally end a loved one’s life is for most an unbearable thought. Likewise, in some cases the motivation to end a life may not always be that of selflessness compassion.
Therefore, we think it is best that active participation in ending a human life shall remain punishable as a crime of murder to ensure fundamental values and legal boundaries remain intact.
This final phase of our life is best left in the hands of well-trained palliative care workers and compassionate doctors, not those of politicians and judges.

Christians and conservative assessment

So what are we to make of this new political party? Christians and conservatives will of course be especially keen to learn more about the ALA and where it stands. But of course it is early days yet. In fact, it is not even one day old as yet, so one can only make very preliminary remarks here.

There already exist a number of smaller conservative and/or Christian parties, such as the CDP, FF, RUA, AC and DLP. One can ask if yet another such party will harm or help the cause of conservatives and Christians. Will it just further divide the vote of these folks, or will it add more breadth, diversity and scope for those of such a political and religious persuasion?

Time will tell. Like some of the other parties such as FF, while it may be mainly made up of Christians, it is pitching itself as a secular party. Of the three new Senate candidates mentioned above, the first two are Christians while the third is not.

We learn more about the religious/secular mix of the ALA from the “About Us” section of their website:

As civic-minded Australians we cannot remain passive while damage is done to our nation, our communities and our families. Members of Australian Liberty Alliance make a stand for what is right, just and not negotiable; values our forefathers worked and died for. We give civic-minded Australians the opportunity to become part of a new movement, a political party that offers Australian voters a new vision and hope for the future.
Our Australia stands for individual liberty, small government, Western values built on Judaeo-Christian and Humanistic foundations, social fairness and an integrated multi-ethnic society with one set of laws for all, regardless of colour, gender or creed.
There is no place for big government, racism, political correctness, moral relativism, divisive multiculturalism or tolerance for the intolerant. Migrants do not dream of a new life in Australia because we are a Socialist, Islamic or tribal society. Migrants came for the freedom, justice and prosperity only Western civilisation creates.
Our party welcomes citizens from all walks of life to become part of this political movement. We are a secular organisation but acknowledge Australia’s Judaeo-Christian foundation. Whether we follow a religion or no religion at all, we respect this heritage, which has advanced Western civilisation, Liberty and Universal Human Rights more than any other.

So we see here an emphasis on the Judeo-Christian worldview and values, but also that of some non-Christian foundations as well. Such a mixture can be workable. In brief, the founding of America was actually based on these two main ideologies and worldviews, with an emphasis on Enlightenment principles as well as decidedly Christian beliefs and values.

So whether such a mixture can work in this new party is certainly possible, but we will have to wait and see how it all pans out. As mentioned, this party is only hours old (although the groundwork for it has been long in the making). Those who want to learn more about the ALA can check out their website:

And the full 80-minute party launch of last night is now online and can be viewed here:

As with most other smaller conservative parties, there is no big funding and financing to be found; there are few if any career politicians involved; and often such parties have to begin from scratch, learning as they go along. As such, they may seem amateurish and perhaps stumbling.

But that is simply how it is when you form a brand new political party without great resources and media support. Indeed, the knives have always been out for the ALA from the MSM, and they are already attacking it. See for example a typical hatchet job by the whining classes from the ABC:

So it will be a long uphill battle. These parties do not have lots of money, media support, or political correctness. But they do have committed individuals who are greatly concerned about Australia, about freedom, and about the inroads of anti-freedom ideologies.

Thus their fight will be long, hard and difficult. They will be attacked along the way and will struggle constantly to get their message out. As mentioned, we must wait and see how the ALA progresses. But I wish it well. If it is already receiving so much hatred and abuse from the MSM, then it must be doing something right.

[1579 words]

26 Replies to “Australian Liberty Alliance”

  1. Thanks Bill, informative and concise and thoughtful, as usual.
    It will be interesting to see how calmly they respond to the initial media attacks in interviews.

  2. Already joined, but we need to pray for support and the needs met, to stand up for our freedom!

  3. Thanks Bill for this. I am a member of the Q Society and know and support the people involved in the ALA. God bless Australia and I hope there will be many who will join forces with them. All speakers were at their very best.

  4. This new party says a lot of good things but not much different to Family First and similar groups. It looks like a further fragmentation of conservatism in this country. Until conservatives can unite and work together, they can’t succeed and the MSM isn’t to blame for that

  5. Thanks Jon. I of course speak to this in my article. Perhaps the more the merrier – it might be great to see 100 such parties in action. But, as I ask above, might this just further shrink and fragment the conservative vote? And obviously how preferences are declared and distributed will determine how all this will pan out. So we will have to wait and see how it goes I guess.

  6. I am both excited and relieved to hear about the ALA & I wish them well. This country needs an answer to its current situation & I hope the ALA is it!

  7. I agree with Jon Newton on this one. We need organized resistance with a conservative alliance. We have a great opportunity with Malcom Turnbul as the leader of the major conservative party.

    There is an opportunity to have a fourth party to act as a counterbalance to the Labor/Greens which would tip the balance. The one nation party did tip the balance with the Howard Government by forcing issues to the forefront.

    If the Liberal party feels threatened then It will think twice about Malcom Turbul and same sex marriage as a policy. We need to ask if they would join forces with other conservative parties in a voting block.

  8. We have too many small parties as it is. People should try to work in existing parties. WE don’t want 25 new parties. No matter how good they are they will divide the workforce and support of existing good parties. They need an office and all the equipment that goes with it. They need election day workers to man polling booths. They could do more working with good parties that already support what they are on about.

  9. Thank you for this constructive overview Bill, I urge the brave representatives to stay strong, many many Australians are with them.

  10. The success of the Motoring Enthusiast Party should be instructive here. If all those “splinter” parties can be co-operate, they can get people elected on the barest minimum of votes. It’s all about preferences.

    On a more -ve note, the word “Christian” well on the nose for the vast majority of Australians now. We don’t need Christian parties! The word “Christian” in, or associated with a political party name is (and I do REALLY lament this truth) its death knell. We need Christians in secular parties. Our friends in the US have coined the acronym RINO (republican in name only), and as a result of that (and a few other things) the Tea Party was born. In Oz we have LINOs (Liberal) CINOs (Conservative) We need our equivalent of the Tea Party. We need our own people in places of influence, and we need to be able to apply pressure on secular pollies to vote the way we want, or be voted out. We need an organised voting block.

    It’s well known that “Turncoat the Treacherous” tried about 6 times (I think) to get preselection for the Labor party, and failed. So he decided that he could do more good for his leftie “mates” by white anting the Liberal party, and succeeded. There’s the example folks. Both major parties need a major influx of good Christian men and women and others of high moral and ethical standing to change the system from within.

  11. Sorry Kev, but I believe the time to “reform” any of the major parties from within is past and the only way to retain the truly conservative influence in Australian politics is, I believe, now only possible through the minor parties, as splintered as they may appear. These splinters represent various aspects of conservatism particularly attractive to different voters and together can form an increasingly powerful push back against the progressive tsunami. Not surprised at all to hear the comment about Malcolm Turnbull – how come not more have spotted it?
    I am a bit sad however about the rather lukewarm stand on the life issues, certainly not something that would have featured so lightly in the “values our fathers died for which are just and nonnegotiable” as they claimed. At the time of the 2 world wars, abortion at any stage of pregnancy and euthanasia would have been unthinkable as a legal proposition except in the minds of the most outrageously progressive of that time.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  12. The attempted Integrating of Christianity and Secularism by the Australian Liberal Alliance is an illusion founded on a delusion. The illusion is that theism and Christianity can be integrated with hard core atheism. And the delusion is that secularism is “religiously “neutral” . When in reality Secularism is a leftist code name for hard-core atheism.

    The Oxford dictionary defines the word “secular” in a variety of ways. All of which are related to a lifestyle and worldview “without religion and God”, or “not connected with religious or spiritual matters.” Thus, the global pursuit of secularism by socialists and Secular humanist activists has always been about securing the judicial and State enforcement of an atheistic worldview and cultural lifestyle “Without God, spirituality or traditional religion”.

    The word “secular” was first used by George Jacob Holyoake, who is seen as the founding father of “secularism”, (13 April 1817 – 22 January 1906). He was a leader of the English “freethought” movement that actively promoted atheism and socialism. He first coined the term “secular” as a substitute for atheism in1851, because “atheism” was regarded as a negative word – hence his preference for “secular”. And “secularism” thus became the code word for “atheism”. Both words meant one and the same, and produced exactly the same results: Namely, a godless lifestyle and socialist world “without God, spirituality and religion”.

    For a brief time Holyoake lectured at the Birmingham Mechanics’ Institute and later became an Owenite , a follower of Robert Marcus Owen (14 May 1771 – 17 November 1858). Who was one of the founders of “utopian socialism”, a label used to define the first flow of modern socialist thought. Holyoake was a strong advocate of the “critical atheism”: The view that belief in God and religion was irrational and must be rejected by all. During a London lecture in 1868″, Holyoake publicly declared his overt atheism, stating, “I do not believe there is such a thing as a God.”

    Holyoake supported fellow Socialist Owenite, Charles Southwell, in his objection to taking religious oaths. Southwell was the founder of the atheist publication Oracle of Reason. Holyoake took over as editor of the publication when Southwell was imprisoned because of its radical contents. ,And at the Mechanics Institute in London. George Holyoake was asked whether there should not be churches and chapels in the community. His answer reflected his flagrant atheism and hostility towards God, gods, and all things religious. Thus, Holyoake was himself charged under the blasphemy laws of that time for openly insulting and speaking evil about God and religion. And was sentenced to six months in prison! This made him the hero of English radicals of every type, including those who were not members of socialist and atheist “freethought” organisations

    It mattered little to Communists, Socialists, and Secular Humanist whether people were non-atheists, agnostics, non-believers, non-theists, or just ignored God. As what mattered to all leftists was that the nations, east and west, functioned on a godless Secular worldview and cultural lifestyle “Without God, spirituality and religion.” And every effort was made in western democracies to promote the “religious neutrality” of secularism. It was a Communist-Socialist –Humanist global strategy that in less than a century would demolish the cultural dominion of theism and Christian worldview. In less than a century the once dominant Christian worldview would be dismantled and banished to the fringe of all western democratic cultures. It was a Socialist –Humanist global strategy that would have deadly effect. In less than a century the cultural dominion of theism and Christianity would be demolished With theism and Christianity banished to the fringe of nations, east and west. Just one religious option among many.

    Thus, the atheistic Secular worldview now reigns supreme in nations east and west. Enforced in all Socialist and Communist countries and dictatorships in the east. With atheistic secularism imposed by the judiciary and the State on all western democracies. All of which now functioned on a religious worldview and cultural lifestyle “Without God, the spirituality and religion.” Secularism was just another word for Atheism. The irony is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that atheism is itself a religion.

  13. Kev, reform from within a party is difficult short of revival. Big parties pay lip service to a Christian faction or candidate but exploit them to man polling booths, etc., while outvoting them in the party room. But if we work and vote for smaller parties and distribute our preferences carefully, the big parties get the message that we vote for moral values before we vote for them.

    As Jon Newton implies, smaller parties should form a coalition party or amalgamate. Combined as an entity, they should be more effective and it will be easier to gain the critical 4% that brings automatic government funding. Here we need sacrifice, statesmanship and servant-hood to stand on the fundamentals that makes us Judeo/Christian conservatives rather than AC, CDP, DLP, RUAP or the semi-secular ALA and FF.

    Motoring Enthusiasts were elected on a tiny percentage due to preference gaming with Group Voting Tickets (GVTs). This will not be possible in future. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) has recommends electoral reform that would prevent the dirty preference deals that effectively steal preferences from unsuspecting voters who blindly “Vote-1 above the line”.

    The JSCEM recommendations are: good – they ban GVTs; but dangerous – they allow Partial Preferential Voting that will result in many ‘formal’ votes expiring, effectively disenfranchising those voters from the all-important selection of the last few Senators.

    With Partial Preferential Voting, Senate voters need only mark preferences (either above or below the line) that cover the number of vacancies. So if none of the six candidates you prefer are elected, then, although your vote is ‘formal’, it may expire before the last Senator is elected. This favours big parties. The media and pundits seem ignorant of this danger to democracy: perhaps because they see it as the easy way to prevent the highly suspect GVT preference deals that elected Motoring Enthusiasts’ Ricky Muir, or Family First’s Steve Fielding some years ago.

    While the JSCEM reforms should reduce the number of candidates and parties (many of which arguably existed only to facilitate GVT schemes), Full Preferential voting (e.g. voting 1 to 15 above the line, or 1 to 45 below the line) is by far the best because it gives us a say right down to the last Senator elected – that is we have full say whether that Senator is Green, Sex Party, Christian etc. But full preference voting is not easy. Hence the push for partial preferential voting – despite its dangers.

    However, there is a safer, easier solution: Split Partial Preferential Voting, where a voter marks, say, preferences 1 to 5, omits preference numbers 6 to 12, but marks preferences 13 to 15. I.e.: put good parties first; put immoral parties last; omit the parties in between that we can’t rank (effectively equal 9th preference in this example).

    It turns out that this is fast and easy to count by computer and would produce results within hours of even close of Senate polls. A bonus is that this Weighted Preference Counting method overcomes the faults of preferential and first-past-the-post systems that sometimes eliminate candidates who would defeat the elected candidate on a one-on-one election. This should give more stable government because in close elections it selects consensus candidates rather than polarising candidates. A 1-page explanation of WPC is at

  14. Thanks for the write up on this, Bill. First of all I respect those like Bernard Gaynor who has joined the ALA and applaud the great work he and others do, ie in speaking and bringing the truth to out in the open.

    However, I do have a tremendous concern and am worried when the join parties which can have a policy, eg “if called upon to take an in-principle position we [ALA] find an abortion should not be performed after the first trimester unless there are exceptional circumstances.”

    This then means then that according to the ALA, 90% of all abortions (for this is how many are done in first 12 weeks/first trimester of pregnancy) is their “in-principle position”.

    How would God see this? The bible (His Word) is clear how He sees this. He tells us we are amazingly and wonderfully “made in His image”.

    He also tells us, “Do not take innocent life”.

    I could not, as a Christian, support a party or any individual that has as their “in-principle position” that it is okay to kill 80-90,000 unborn babies … every year.

  15. Most Australian residents are indigenous (born here) are given (by default) citizenship on the assumption, that they will grow up to be contributors to the pool of common good. They are also gifted hard-won, democratic, enlightened, privileges-in-trust, to be maintained (or improved where possible) in the interests of the taxpaying patriots, that fund everything.. (these are commonly called “rights” but really, all just temporary, unless they are defended) usually by patriotic, capitalist taxpayers who have earned that “right” / privilege to vote and carry. But are all conditional, on being happy to support (non-wartime) humanity, democracy and further enlightenment…

    But some in 2015 , want to be ( pay every week to the local imam to be, plus saudi funded to be) apartheid, nazi, supremacist parasites.(with nothing to live for, only fantasy virgins to die for)

    Just a reminder . No country is (or was ever) owned . The visitors , residents , transients etc., are all temporary custodians, parasites, users or opportunists of some sort. When the Asians arrived it was not Australia, when the Dutch arrived, it was not Australia, when the English arrived it was not Australia (or a managed common wealth /services).etc. etc.

    ( Pre Australia ATO ) Does anyone know what Asian / African ancestors, brought or bought or built, (or that anybody wanted) or that could be stolen from their decendants ?. Please could you speak up now.

    What separates civilized groups into nation groups is the tax departments / benevolent kings / (who tried to balance / manage the collected pool of common good for the benefit of the descendants of that effort). The nationality of anyone, standing anywhere on this earth is determined by the name of that taxing system and their recognition by, that taxing system ( either as contributor or beneficiary) here, currently called Australia (plus funding some protectorates).

    Governments don’t have their own money, people are voting for (hoping for ) better managers of collected tax dollar funds and defense organizers how best to protect what is being coveted by parasites.

    The human race covers all blends of evolved genetics , skin color, age, gender. sky-fairy believers etc. is all of no consequence and should not prompt special supremacist treatment because of it .To do so would be racist , ageist, apartheid, etc. All that is required is that you contribute some of your labor to that group asset, in the required way. If a tax department considers its citizen (taxpayers) different, because of the color of their skin / faith / ancestor. This is inefficient and fosters unrest and is the result of a parasitic scam. Note. Living in France, speaking French, wearing a beret etc. only makes you appear French. If you are not on the french tax books, you are stateless.

    If you have no work ethic and just want to milk a system, be warned this can lead to rejection or hostility (The parasitic muslim infiltrate, subvert / kill ethic, for example) Their racism can be detected by listening. When you hear, kill all the Jews, for example, or someone claiming to be different to the human race (and wanting special treatment of course) this is when (by their own action) they deserved to be banned from the privileges of a tax system, or forfeit the privilege, to live freely among the tax payers that they have conned.

    If a land mass is populated, but has no “common good” pool ” , then that land mass, doesn’t have a legally binding name and is ” nullius ” and any resident is stateless, ( and any land mass reference name , or flag , is also transient )

    The value of a ” pool of common good ” once established ( establishment / management start up gifts, IE from England (or who ever), plus taxpayer investment ) is what pays for the upkeep of roads, sewerage, hospitals, welfare etc . and what firefighters, police, army, air force etc. fight to protect. A flag is really irrelevant, but the modern, evolved, sane humanist values are still worth fighting for, any day of the week.

    The legal name is really ( and should logically be) secondary. “Humanity ” would be a good name / goal for a country (or a world) or maybe ” golden rule ” or maybe ” sanity first ” ? What do you think ? . Anyone ?.. ….. P.S. …of course in “Muslim lands” its dog eat dog Islamic mafia and like all mafia / union extortion parasites , all of the above is unfortunately , demonstrably and historically, irrelevant. ..and everyone is forced into subservience, to just another imagined, all powerful ? “sky fairy” (and have to kill non believers (rational humans ) to protect that all powerful etc. sky fairy). WTF

    When you try your best, to stop Muslims killing each other , enslaving each other, extorting each other, demonizing each other, and try to explain the golden rule, humanity, civilized interaction, democracy, enlightenment, the world is round etc. and suddenly you are the bad guy ?

    Then you find out their golden boy (Muhammad) the “holy” man (everyone wants to emulate) was a medieval, illiterate war monger, misogamist, psychopathic , racist, mass murderer, pedophile and slaver? and didn’t even make up his own “sky fairy”, stole that too.

    And their perfect ‘holy book” is the result of years of Chinese ” whispers” with illiterare stone age Bedouin and is anyway, just a timeless war manual on how to kill your way, to the new improves paradise ( apparently Ji-hobbist arseholes will be rewarded with , 4 wives (as young as they like) 72 virgin slaves, (sheep, goats or women, its multiple choice selfishness ) 300 sexy boys , rivers of wine, etc.

    When that’s the type of middle eastern insanity, that has got your friends killed and you traumatized, for no good reason . I’m sorry but that kind of waste, (for these parasitic, zombie zealot , cretins), has got to mess with any civilized head. Improve if you can. Share if you like

  16. ALA, You got my vote and many of my friends. I am actively trying to recruit more members/supporters. At this stage I am making some progress, hope to do better.
    P.S. Have posted my application to become financial member and will do all I can to see this Party gets a voiced in our “lucky” country.
    cheers, M.B.C.

  17. I can just imagine what Bernard Gaynor’s first speech in the Senate will be like. Now everyone please make it happen!

  18. ALA all the way, please save this country from the other parties that are flooding Australia with people of haterd Quran 5:51

  19. Myself and four other members have just distributed over 750 flyers in our district – lets hope we will have some serious thinkers among that lot.

  20. Good work Kevin and friends we have letterboxed 5000 in Sydney, hope that 2/7/16 will not be raining as I will be manning a gate at my local school. (For ALA)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: