There does not seem to be a lot of interest in a National Police Force. I just wonder how we would be with an Australia wide Policing regime. At present both New South Wales and Queensland discriminate against Police. They then discriminate against everyone else as well.

Queensland has a S 204 in its Criminal Code, Disobedience to Statute Law, and this would have to be the most broken law in Australia. The second most broken law in Australia would have to be the Constitution.

While we have no way of enforcing the Constitution, in New South Wales since 1970, when the Parliament here repealed the Australian Constitution, as far as New South Wales is concerned, and established its own Judicial Power, backed by an armed force, and a Sherif who only owes allegiance to a secular State, and who will carry out any kind of atrocity, on behalf of the Judges, the federation has broken down.

A National Police Force could attract the best and brightest. It would not break Statute Law every time it straps on its pistols, and sends out a SWAT team. These light infantrymen and women, are in breach of Statute Law. The law of s 114 Constitution prohibits an armed force, because as far as I am aware there is no specific statute permitting State Police to be armed. I know when I was a boy Police did not carry firearms, but were entitled to buy one for their own protection, and had pistols in the safe at the Cop Shop, under the control of a sergeant.

Just imagine a National Police Force, interested in obeying the law and keeping the peace, with a National Career Path. The Chief of the Commonwealth Police, would be as powerful as a Prime Minister. His officers would be the toast of society and enormously prosperous, because the Parliament of the Commonwealth has made the laws to make them so. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was enacted in 1986. A National Police Force would end the dishonesty of pretending it does not exist

People worry about the debt Kevin Rudd has run up, and will continue to run up. It would appear from internet resources that Brendan O’Connor is the minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police. The Minister for Home Affairs, has an LLB Law Degree, from Monash, so can read and understand Statute Law.

The keys to a balanced budget are in Brendan’s hot little hands. Brendan must call in the present head of the Australian Federal Police. He should have with him a copy of the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) and the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) , and point out to the Federal Police, that half the Crown revenue prior to the hostile takeover of Australia by lawyers, was provided by criminals.

He should also obtain a copy of S 122 Fines Act 1966, in New South Wales where the Parliament of New South Wales has provided that half of every fine goes to the prosecutor. It also provides that if the prosecutor is a police officer he gets nothing. Brendan can point out to the Australian Federal Police, that by S 109 Constitution, coupled with S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, that provision discriminates and does not, cannot apply to Federal Police.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits discrimination on any grounds, in Article 26. So Brendan should get a copy of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 as well. To truly clear his thinking, he should also get a copy of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) where s 12 and 13 makes a Schedule part of an Act.

Lawyers are some of the biggest criminals around and have enriched themselves unjustly, since 1970. S 43 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) makes it a crime to attempt to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The fine for an individual is set by s 4B Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth), at $33,000 or five years jail. Unleash the Australian Federal Police and just watch the money roll in

Peter the Believer
Half of the fine given out goes to the "Prosecutor"? Wow, is that true? If so how many lawyers are claiming this particular bounty? I thought prosecutors were lawyers paid by the State and that the state took the fine, please explain?

The Office of Director of Public Prosecutions was created by the Hawke Government in 1983. This was to protect the criminals recruited under Fraser to staff the Federal Court of Australia, The Family Court and High Court so that the Constitution of Australia could be ignored at will, and so s 80 Constitution could no longer be used to call anyone favoured by the Commonwealth Government to account. I say the Judges and Magistrates of Australia are criminals, because the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) enacted by Paul Keating’s government makes them criminals.

The States all created the same thing, like the Office of Public Prosecutions in Victoria. These criminals have so intimidated State Police that they are almost afraid to pass wind, unless the Director of Public Prosecutions say so.

The Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, has section 9.5 inserted in it. It reads:
(5) For the purposes of the performance of his or her functions, the Director may take over a proceeding that was instituted or is being carried on by another person, being a proceeding:
(a) for the commitment of a person for trial in respect of an indictable offence against a law of the Commonwealth; or
(b) for the summary conviction of a person in respect of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth; Then the Director may decline to carry it on further even if the Director has not taken it over under subsection (5).

This authorizes the Director to break the law, and effectively politicizes law enforcement in Australia. It was introduced so that Judges and Magistrates could not be prosecuted, except by the State and Commonwealth Governments, and the rope around your neck and theirs was jerked tight.

It also means that billion of dollars in lost revenue every year ends up in lawyers pockets, instead of making your taxes less. It is an illegal Act, because it acquires property the ownership of which is in private hands, until taken over, by the Commonwealth, and when it is discontinued, as it almost invariably is, then its value is destroyed

The first person a National Policeman should arrest and bring to trial is the Director of Public Prosecutions. The trial should be for every time that such person has taken over and destroyed a cause of action commenced by a private person, under authority granted by S 13 and 15F Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth). There is still provision in Melbourne, for a Private Individual to initiate criminal proceedings in the Melbourne Magistrates Court, upon payment of a sum of Forty Dollars.

One was initiated against the Federal Court of Australia about twelve months ago. The Federal Court of Australia is an illegal organisation, created by the Liberals, and continued by the Labor Party, for the benefit of lawyers. As expected the Director of Public Prosecutions took it over and discontinued it. It was initiated because the Federal Court had refused to file a proceeding sought to be commenced by a private individual. All the private individual wanted was to have a Commonwealth authority obey the law.

The offence alleged was a breach of s 45 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth). This says that any attempt to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth is a crime, and Order 46 Rule 7A Federal Court Rules as subordinate legislation should not authorise the Federal Court to break the law. The Director did not want that law tested and thrown out, because he is a criminal too.

The Directors conduct is illegal. S 51 Placitum (xxxi) Constitution says the Commonwealth cannot acquire any property except on just terms. When an action is taken over and discontinued, there is no just terms, and no justice whatsoever. The amount of money the Federal Court of Australia should have been required to pay, is $165,000 because that is what is set by s 4B Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth). It accrues daily by s 4K Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth), so if a person went in and the Registry of the Federal Court refused to file the proceeding, every day for five days, the penalty would be $825,000

The greater the centralisation, the greater the distance between the authority and the all suffering tax payer... who is required to pay for these police services.

imho devolution works better than centralisation. I can see some merit in a federal force... like FBI in USA but not the complete celtralisation of police. I would rather see police authorities responsible to the suburb in which they serve, answering to the people they are supposed to "protect and serve" instead of some politically appointed commissioner in Spring or Pitt St.

In the USA they organise police along a devolved structure of town versus county versus state versus federal. I am certain, what we get "served" in terms of "protection" is less effective on our state / federal only basis, where police decisions are made by their political masters instead of the immediate tax paying community.