How often have you heard the term woke ideology? It’s been part of our life for so long now it seems there is no end in sight.

Many would argue that schools are to blame. Others point to mainstream and social media.

And it’s this finger pointing that fuels these subjective talkfests.

Surely we’re bigger than this - capable of looking beyond what’s written or said, of thinking for ourselves, and of seeing woke ideology for what it is: a deliberate distraction from the truth.

Let’s start with the term.

Cambridge Dictionary defines woke with basically one word: aware.^[i] Then it tacks on a qualifier – especially of social problems such as racism and inequality.

Ideology gets the same treatment. It’s defined as a set of beliefs or principles, and then the qualifier: especially one underpinning a political system, party or organisation.^[ii]

Peel back the qualifiers you get: aware of a set of beliefs or principles. Nothing about politics, media, race or inequality.

Could it be that we’ve been deliberately distracted with qualifiers – pulled toward media, political systems and organisations, rather than left to seek the truth independently?

History shows us what informed public discourse can look like.

Trove^[iii] - an online portal of newspapers, Government Gazettes, maps and more from Australian libraries, universities and archives – is an exemplar of this: thoughtful commentary and opinion pieces once contributed genuinely to public discourse.

Today, we have little of this. Investigative journalism that goes to the heart of issues is rare. Rarer still is mainstream media crediting the independent voices doing that work on social media.

It raises some necessary questions for us all:

• What do you believe?

• What principles do you live by?

• How are you influenced by others?

• How do you avoid blind faith in reporting from mainstream media?

• What do you investigate, to educate yourself beyond what is reported?

And lastly, what can you do to encourage respectful conversations that raise awareness of the set of beliefs or principles held by you and others?

Next time you read an article or listen to the news, consider two principles fundamental to my First Principles on Education^® advisory work.

1. All knowledge begins with the senses.

2. Education begins with a shared language of agreed objective meaning.

Just as our walk through the definitions of woke and ideology showed, knowing holds little value if it’s not followed up with understanding. The dictionary gives us an objective starting point – but the qualifiers show how that objective meaning can be redirected, loudly and deliberately, on a global scale. And in that redirection something gets lost: not all of us signed up to this movement.

Political systems, parties and organisations don’t change. People do.

And with the coming of age of social media, we are all journalists and narrators of today - and of what we’re creating for the future.

Wouldn’t the world be a much safer, more prosperous and generous place if all of us were determined in our quest to be truth seekers and truth tellers?

^[i] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woke

^[ii] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ideology

^[iii] https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/244594988?searchTerm=Nicholas%20lacey%20auction

WHERE CURIOSITY MEETS COURAGE

BETRAYAL: Propaganda from the public service to the classroom

A Conversation with Prolific Writer Tony Thomas

If you think the curriculum is the problem, think again. Left-wing propaganda in schools is the consequence of decades of work - turning elected members into puppets, and unelected bureaucrats into middle managers for their masters. We’re all left high and dry. Unless we’re willing to get educated.

Listen Now

SUBMIT. DON’T ASK: Islam’s reality or perception

A conversation with Theologist Dr. Bernie Power

How do scriptures get interpreted? Does the behaviour of believers compromise the very message a text was intended to mean? A conversation on the life, lessons and facts of Islam, and the perceptions that surround it.

LISTEN NOW

TURN OFF THE TAP: How Canberra Bankrolled the Covid Response

A conversation with Former Labor MP Gary Johns

Why did state premiers have more power than the Prime Minister during COVID? Gary John’s has an answer: follow the money. In this conversation the author of Public Health: An Unhealthy Conceit explains how Commonwealth funding of state hospitals and schools became the quiet mechanism behind Australia’s lockdown.

LISTEN NOW

In 2013 a 15-year-old boy was hit by an SUV, but Victorian’s were told otherwise – that then opposition leader Daniel Andrews and his wife were the ones hit, by the boy.

Then the photos surfaced.

The damage wasn’t on the side of the car where a cyclist crashing into it would leave a mark, but on the front - a shattered windscreen and more. It’s the kind of damage you get from hitting someone, not the other way around.

Bike Boy: The True Crime Podcast

Produced by Jackson Moon, hosted by journalist Rohan Wenn, with private investigator Scott Hanley - shares what’s now considered Victoria’s greatest political cover-up. Across 22 episodes, it tells the story of what their investigation uncovered: witness statements police failed to take, photographs of the scene authorities had but didn’t release, internal emails, and expert forensic analysis.^[i]

That work is now a BRIEF OF EVIDENCE running over 500 pages, delivered to Victorian Chief Commissioner Mike Bush.^[ii]

Kel Glare AO, a former Police Commissioner and lawyer, says the evidence is strong enough for a court to weigh charges of perjury, conspiracy, and attempting to pervert the course of justice against former Premier Daniel Andrews, his wife Catherine Andrews, and members of Victoria Police.

The forensic crash analysis behind that conclusion was carried out by Dr Raymond Shuey, a decorated former Assistant Commissioner of Police.^[iii]

For 13 years, no criminal investigation has ever been conducted.

A Witness Who Became the Minister for Police

One key piece of alleged evidence has come to light. And it’s central to why it could be said that Victoria - currently led by Labor, with a Liberal opposition alongside it - is failing to govern and lawfully serve its citizens.

Peter Richardson, a former police officer, raised on my podcast, The Cheryl Lacey Show, an allegation that Victoria’s current Minister for Police was a firsthand witness to the crash years before entering politics, while he was a union delegate.

That alleged witness is Paul Edbrooke MP - who replaced endorsed candidate Helen Constas for the seat of Frankston - on grounds of workplace bullying - in what Labor members called at the time ‘disgraceful’.^[iv]

Named Australia’s first Minister for Men and Boys in April this year^[v], he has since been appointed Minister for Police, Emergency Services, Crime Prevention and Multicultural Affairs.^[vi]

“I’m sticking my neck out a long way here,” Richardson told me, admitting he was relaying details he’d only recently learned himself.

If accurate - and there is nothing public to say otherwise - the question is straightforward: how does a witness to an unprosecuted, cover-up-alleged crash that left a teenage boy fighting for his life end up as the minister overseeing the police force that never investigated it?

And if so, this isn’t only a Labor problem. It reaches inside Parliament to opposition MPs unwilling to act as well.

Three Liberal MPs Turned Down a Briefing

Jackson Moon has revealed that three senior Liberal MPs - Jess Wilson (former chief of staff to former federal treasurer Josh Frydenberg), Brad Battin (a former police officer), and James Newbury (a career politician) - were offered a personal walkthrough of the evidence from Kel Glare and declined.^[vii]

Moon’s open letter puts pointed questions to each: whether Ryan Meuleman’s recent, unrelated arrest is being used as cover to avoid the evidence; why Battin, a former police officer who once publicly backed this investigation, has gone quiet; whether Newbury, potentially Victoria’s next Attorney-General, is failing his first real test before he’s even started the job; and whether Wilson has the capacity to lead, when claiming to take law and order and corruption seriously, but remaining silent.

You cannot campaign on accountability while declining a meeting with the person handing you the paperwork.

Both Sides Have Had the Chance to Act Lawfully and Haven’t

A Labor government currently holds the brief and, on Richardson’s account, may have a minister with an undisclosed personal connection to the crash.

A Liberal opposition – determined to win the November election - turned down a briefing from one of the state’s most credentialed former police chiefs.

The crash itself happened in 2013 under a Liberal government whose police response – it seems - was never scrutinised either.

Every politician in office since 2013 has had a chance to take the lead on ensuring a criminal investigation. None of them have.

What We Victorians Can Do About It

1. Listen to Bike Boy: The True Crime Podcast at bikeboy.com.au, starting with the Series 2 finale featuring Glare’s assessment of the brief.^[viii]

2. Listen to Peter Richardson’s interview on The Cheryl Lacey Show for his account of the alleged witness now serving as Minister for Police.^[ix]

3. Contact the office of Paul Edbrooke MP, Minister for Police, and make it clear it is your will that he come forward to confirm or deny his presence at the 2013 crash - and that he either opens a criminal investigation under his portfolio or resigns.

4. Contact your own local MP, regardless of party, and make it clear it is your will that the BRIEF OF EVIDENCE handed to Mike Bush be released and confirm in writing to you their actions.

5. Lodge a complaint with IBAC over the handling of the BRIEF OF EVIDENCE and the absence of any criminal investigation.

6. Support Ryan Meuleman directly - 13 years on, he has still never been formally interviewed by the police whose job it was to investigate what happened to him.

7. Visit UCSA.LAND a website developed by Mike Holt and his team of trustees who have a plan to remove corruption in Australia.^[x]

A brief backed by former chief commissioner Kel Glare needs every Victorian to stand up, stand beside brave investigative former police officers and stand up against this corrupt Victorian state.

It is up to you and every Victorian to take back your life and that of your family’s. We each must take responsible action in building a lawful society for everyone’s health, safety, and prosperity. Let’s do this.

Bike Boy Podcast

The Cheryl Lacey Show

UCSA.LAND

^[i] https://bikeboy.com.au/podcast

^[ii] https://www.facebook.com/BikeBoyInvestigation

^[iii] https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/bike-boy-campaign-accused-of-giving-cash-gifts-to-potential-witnesses-in-case-against-daniel-andrews-20260214-p5o2b2.html

^[iv] https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/selection-of-candidate-paul-edbrooke-by-administrative-committee-disgraceful-say-frankston-alp-members/news-story/eee16da1974ff83c323475ffc5b58e24

^[v] https://ntv.org.au/victoria-welcomes-new-minister-for-men-and-boys-now-we-need-action/

^[vi] https://www.police.vic.gov.au/corporate-governance-decision-making-teams

^[vii] https://www.facebook.com/BikeBoyInvestigation/

^[viii] https://bikeboy.com.au/podcast

^{[ix] https://ucsa.land}

That was my first and only thought at the moment I was diagnosed with breast cancer. At 45, with two daughters, aged 12 and 4, I was more terrified for them than I was for myself.

My eldest, was born in Thailand and was 3 years and 10 months old when I became her mum. Born in Hong Kong, my youngest was almost 1 year old when I became her mum, four years later. How could it be possible, I thought, for it all to be lost so soon?

The diagnosis marked another turning point for me. I finally understood what was driving my view of education, the role of schools and those who worked in them.

At that point, my future was uncertain. One thing, though, was clear: people working in schools, whether directly or indirectly, wouldn’t shout out, “My duty of care extends to raising your children if anything should happen to you.” And neither should they.

Schools aren’t homes. Those who work in schools aren’t parents to your children. Raising children isn’t done through a partnership between your home and your children’s school or between you and your children’s teachers. Instead, you have a relationship with the school and the teachers.

You might be wondering about the difference between the two.

Essentially, I do not believe that everyone involved with your children has equal responsibility for them - and that’s as it should be. In my view, it’s not a question of partnership. There is, however, an ever-evolving ebb and flow of people, knowledge and beliefs that have many and varied relationships with, and influence on, you and your children. And it’s the nature of this relationship we need to qualify.

Parents are responsible for raising children and raising them in their own way. My view has remained constant: I’ve raised my girls on my terms and on behalf of their biological parents.

Schools provide education services. But there is a tremendous difference between respectful appreciation of those services and unconditional trust in them.

Respectful appreciation of the role of a teacher and the role of a parent has always been an intrinsic compass for me. This is probably because, as a child, I always knew what I wanted to be - a mum and a teacher.

When I began teaching in 1989, however, I wasn’t fully prepared for the experiences I was about to have and where they would take me. The same was the case a decade later when I became a mum.

At the time of the cancer diagnosis, I had already invested twenty years in trying to tie a ribbon of mutual respect around the home-school relationship, through teaching, radio broadcasting, publishing, advisory work, business ownership and parenting.

It became clear that everything I had done and experienced during those twenty years was merely an apprenticeship. The real work was just about to begin.

Drawing on my experience, I took a dive into the depths of humanity to try to understand how the power imbalance between home and school had evolved, how the values of faith and family had been undermined and how we had fallen, unconsciously, into an unhealthy co-dependency with government with regard to school education and the raising of our children.

School education is highly emotional.

(excerpt from Your Children – Take The Lead On Their Education - Author Cheryl Lacey)

And it is deeply political.

A child’s years of schooling can span dozens of elections, and with each one the pendulum swings. New ministers, councillors, priorities, frameworks, and new school leaders. And, over time, across the western world, parents have been encouraged - gradually, almost imperceptibly - to relinquish to government the right to be responsible for raising their own children – including decisions about education.

Whether knowingly or willingly, many have.

Ultimately, the consequence of this constant change and relinquishment, is that values of faith and family have been compromised and in many ways erased.

But what endures despite political, policy or leadership change, is the local school community - the parents and grandparents who know their families best and teachers who know their students better than any plan a government has for them, and who will still be there when the next plan arrives.

That is the greater constant, and it deserves to be honoured as such.

Genuine Relationships

The beauty of a relationship as distinct from a partnership is that it allows space. Space for the home to be the home and the school to be the school, each respecting the rights and responsibilities of the other.

In a genuine relationship there is no need for overreach, because the distinction is understood enabling mutual respect and trust to grow and flourish.

When that understanding is a natural part of a school community - when parents, grandparents, teachers and leaders all know the distinction and honour it – everyone can benefit.

School Boards

And that is the essence of a school board. They’re comprised of parents, educators, school leaders and members of the community for good reason. It ensures a cross-section of representation and has the capacity to engage in rich discussion and debate over educational philosophy, service provision, consistency and, most importantly, what makes every educator, student, family and community unique.

Similarities yes. Differences yes. Identical, absolutely not.

School boards that know, understand and act on the distinction between a partnership and a relationship expect families to be informed and want participation in whatever capacity possible.

And it is here, this essential place where, other than private matters, nothing is off the table for the school community to know, understand, and be part of when change, growth, stability and possibility presents itself. There’s no secret society for secret meetings or closed door power, quite the contrary.

Educators Can Be Parents Too

Like me, many teachers have their own children too, and what they want for them is the clearest guide to what they stand for professionally for your children – their students.

Raising children is an honour and a privilege. That responsibility must be sincerely encouraged and never weakened by the quiet assumption that someone else always knows better.

Ebook Available Now

Purchase Ebook

For your children…
Being students is one part of life. Schools have value and teachers are important. Being your children is for all of life. Your role as parent is supremely valuable and important all of the time.
Not everything that happens at home is the school’s concern. Everything that happens to your children at school is your concern. You can be the voice for change; you can make a difference.
They are... Your Children Take the Lead on Their Education.

Testimonial

Cheryl’s writing is forthright, concise and relatable. Her ability to combine knowledge, practicality and empathy makes this book an invaluable resource and a testament to her impact and influence. Her unwavering commitment to excellence is evident as she offers practical advice, real-life examples and actionable steps that resonate on a personal level and make for informative and thought-provoking reading. She creates a sense of camaraderie and offers authentic support and encouragement for parents who are navigating the complex and often dense landscape of education. This book is not just an educational resource. It is a transformative and invaluable tool that empowers parents to take the lead, with confidence, and be responsible advocates for their children’s education.

—Colleen Harkin, National Manager and Research Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs

Conversations On Education Community

Join me live every Thursday at 7pm AEST for a conversation on education. We open with a 10-minute topic breakdown, followed by open conversation. No matter what your role is in education - leader, teacher, consultant, board member, parent, grandparent - this is the place to be for nsights, questions, answers and possibilities.

This weeks conversation: The distinction between partnerships and relationships

A must for anyone with an interest in education.

After all, it impacts all of us all of the time.

Casual: $12/month · Membership: $97/12 months

Casual

Membership

First Principles On Education Colloquium

From Principles To Practice V3

396KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

PODCAST - The Cheryl Lacey Show

Where Curiosity Meets Courage

Losing a teaching licence in New Zealand was one of several crises that forced Chris Valli to confront difficult truths about himself. Following a period of professional and personal upheaval, some of it self-inflicted, he came to see vulnerability not as weakness, but as an act of courage and honesty.

In this conversation, Chris reflects on poor decisions, consequences, accountability, and where an honest examination of one’s own story can lead.

Listen Now

A response to Greg Sheridan

Labor spends our billions on left-wing autocracy^[i]

The Australian May 2026

Greg Sheridan opens with five words: “Welcome to Australia, the nation Labor rigged.”

It’s fair to say this is his argument and his problem.

His piece casts Labor as the villain and the Liberals as the party that will set things right, if only we’d let them. Sheridan is a smart man and a serious journalist, which makes it harder to excuse that he identifies the diseases but misdiagnoses the cause.

There is one moment where he nearly gets there. “The tendency is towards a one-party state,” he writes, “even if different party labels are preserved.” This could have been the basis of his entire article. Instead he drops it and goes straight back to blaming Labor.

Welcome to the oldest trick in the Australian political playbook.

The Good Cop, Bad Cop Game

Once you see the pattern, you can’t unsee it. Conservative opinion writers and the Labor Party are locked in a relationship that looks like conflict but operates as a partnership. Each needs the other and each protects the other from the deeper question.

What if both major parties are the problem?

Sheridan’s piece reverts to type. Blame Labor, imply the Liberals are the remedy and repeat. It’s a reliable formula that keeps parties and their allies in business. Bias is forgivable in opinion writing, ignoring the historical record is not.

The Liberals Built This Too

The Climate Change Authority, Sheridan’s prime exhibit of progressive propaganda machinery, was established under Julia Gillard in July 2012^[ii]. Fourteen months later the Liberal Party came to power. Under three prime ministers, it held government for eleven consecutive years, yet the Authority is still there. If it represents the ideological takeover Sheridan describes, the Liberals had eleven years to dismantle it and chose not to.

That choice is easier to understand once you look at what the Liberals were doing on climate during those same years. In 2015, Tony Abbott committed Australia to the Paris Agreement.^[iii] Three years later, he said he wouldn’t have had he known the US would withdraw.^[iv] Absent principle and leadership, he tried to please many simultaneously caught between the UK relationship and the US relationship, ultimately serving neither. The Paris architecture Sheridan treats as Labor radicalism was a Liberal buy in.

The current opposition leader, Angus Taylor, was Minister for Energy from 2018, four years before Labor came to power. In a speech to the National Small Business Summit in August of that year, he declared, “Renewables are in my blood, and have been from the day I was born.^[v] As well as hydro, solar is playing an increasingly important role in our networks. Like many others in regional Australia, we use solar technology on the farm where we live.” He closed his address with a promise to ‘get power prices down’.

The 82 per cent renewables target that Sheridan frames as this government’s ideological imposition was built on foundations the Liberals laid, maintained, and personally endorsed at the ministerial level.

Then there is nuclear energy. Sheridan is critical of the ban, but stops short of asking who imposed it, closing off the most obvious alternative to renewables. Perhaps because it was John Howard’s Liberal government that introduced two bills in 1999 to prohibit it.^[vi] The party now campaigning on nuclear as the courageous answer to Labor’s green orthodoxy is the same party that made nuclear illegal a quarter-century ago.^[vii]

Compulsory superannuation was introduced in 1992 under Paul Keating. It has given union-linked funds enormous financial and political power, a problem Sheridan correctly identifies. However, the Liberal Party has held federal government for the majority of the time since and yet the Labor-union heavy board structure of industry super funds and the political campaigning of those funds have largely been untouched. A peek at key positions for ex Liberal National MP’s may well be a clue.

Morrison’s government was, by Sheridan’s own account, too frightened of the super funds to campaign for letting people access their own money for a house deposit. In other words, Morrison rolled over to Labor and the unions while in government.

The housing question goes deeper still. It was Sir Robert Menzies who, in 1964, introduced the Home Savings Grant Act^[viii], resurrected by John Howard in July 2000 to likely offset the effect of GST, then doubled in handback eight months later. The injection of our money, presented as a lure of a gift from government went directly into the property market, without corresponding increase in supply. Most serious economists now regard it as one of the foundational policy decisions that drove Australian housing beyond the reach of families.

This did not begin under Labor. It began under a Liberal government that chose to inflate demand and call it assistance. Both Labor and Liberal alike, has added its own version of the same misleading handback: more grants and more schemes, essentially a multi-generational wound, covered up by both parties.

The sustainability priority in the national curriculum Sheridan identifies as progressive indoctrination, was agreed to in 2008 by all Australian governments. Granted it was an all Labor achievement, bar one independent, however the Liberal Party held power for eleven years from 2013, during which time they expanded the curriculum in 2015 and left the cross curricula priorities intact.^[ix]

Sheridan raises both antisemitism and transgender rights as he suggests the Australian Human Rights Commission, originally established by Malcolm Fraser in 1981^[x], is funded to propagate a progressivist left world view. To put this in context, there are approximately 117,000 Australians who identify as Jewish; the ABS records transgender Australians over 16 at approximately 198,000 of 24 million. The deeper issue is that Australia has no federal Human Rights Act. Only Victoria, Queensland and the ACT have one. It begs the question — which Australians are subject to the commission?

And then there is COVID. Sheridan warns gravely of a budget pushing Australia toward a welfare state. But the largest single transfer of money from government to citizen in Australia’s peacetime history happened under the Morrison Liberal-National government. Here is your free money, sit at home, buy online and close your eyes to Australian businesses being wiped out. Was this a Liberal government, discovering when frightened enough, that it believes in government dependency after all?

In short, the Liberals did not dismantle the Climate Change Authority, they committed to and signed the Paris Agreement. Their leader banned nuclear energy and the then Energy Minister now opposition leader championed renewables. They left union super untouched and expanded the progressive curriculum. They passed a bill leading the housing affordability crisis and spent more on financial handouts in two years than any Labor government had dared. The picture that emerges is not of a party fighting left-wing autocracy, it is of a party managing and occasionally accelerating it, while positioning itself a trustworthy, principled alternative.

What then of Democracy?

Sheridan invokes democracy repeatedly as the standard against which progressive orthodoxy fails. Fair point, as far as it goes. But the word is being deployed without an adjective, and that above all else is Australia’s greatest failing.

What kind of democracy are we talking about?

Read more

People who work in schools are observers of disengagement, but noticing is not the same as knowing.

At what point does a teacher’s observation become a reason to reach into the private life of a family, and how far is too far?

Family law in Australia is not what most people imagine. At its most contested it is strategic, adversarial, and operating under conditions that would unsettle anyone seeing them clearly for the first time.

James Glissan, a practising lawyer in New South Wales, describes a pattern now almost routine in disputed family law matters. When proceedings begin, whether over parenting arrangements or property, an Apprehended Violence Order is almost always taken out at the same time, or just before.

The two proceedings run in parallel. The AVO is civil, not criminal, but it reshapes parenting arrangements, restricts contact, affects employment, and can be detrimental to a person’s life for life.

And the standard it is judged against does not require certainty, only that one version of events is more likely than the other.

And as Glissan observes, family law creates significant room for evidence that would never be admitted in a criminal court.

The more serious the allegation, the more evidence should be required, but in practice that principle is applied unevenly, in proceedings conducted on incomplete and deeply conflicting material.

It is this very system where a school report, a recorded teacher judgement, or an account given informally to one parent can feed into. Whether knowingly or not, teachers and their colleagues becomes party to life changing conditions.

When a teacher identifies disengagement, what does it actually take to be satisfied the teacher should be involved?

Courts have spent centuries identifying what counts as evidence, how much of it is needed, and who gets to respond before a finding is made.

But teachers, by the nature of their work requiring direct contact with a child, can immediately commence an investigation, purely on the basis of an observation.

And any findings that enter a legal system with its own rules about what counts and what doesn’t. When its all over, the teacher moves on, but the family doesn’t get that option.

When a school employee becomes part of a family law dispute, it is bringing the state into the most private crisis a family will ever face.

Australians can shoulder a great deal. What they tolerate poorly is the sense that the goalposts are moving, that the rules are unclear and applied unevenly. Family law, at its worst, produces exactly that feeling. School employees are sometimes the ones moving the goalposts.

Ultimately there is a real difference between a mandatory reporting obligation, which exists for good reason and becoming a participant in a very personal and often times devastating legal dispute.

Enjoyed this article? It was inspired by my conversation with James Glissan on The Cheryl Lacey Show. Listen to the full episode for more education and the law - and subscribe so you never miss a conversation.

LISTEN TO THE FULL CONVERSATION

Read more

In 2013, fifteen-year-old Ryan Meuleman was struck by an SUV on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula and airlifted to hospital with life-threatening injuries. What should have triggered a thorough, by-the-book police investigation has instead become an ongoing cover-up, with 40 alleged procedural failures now coming to light.

In a damning exchange on The Cheryl Lacey Show, former Victoria Police officer turned private investigator Scott Hanley described how the Andrews’ first instinct was not to call for help.

“The first thing the Andrews did is grab Ryan’s phone and ring his sister.”

“It’s mind-blowing the way they behaved,” Hanley said.

A six-and-a-half-minute window between the collision and the eventual emergency call has become one of the most troubling aspects of the case.

The breaches of protocol didn’t stop there.

No witness statements were taken, no photographs of the scene and no sketch of the collision site.

Ryan’s bicycle was simply left at the scene, where a witness eventually took it away.

“They didn’t even take a photo of the bike,” Hanley said.

Cheryl then pressed on the legal significance of witness statements, asking whether they must be signed by both the witness and the officer taking the statement. Hanley confirmed they must.

“That’s how we can legally use them in court,” he said, adding that timing is critical: “The closer to the incident you’re taking a statement from, the better. Obviously, people’s memory gets a bit foggy as time progresses.”

The final question of Hanley was, “Who in the police force is blocking a proper investigation into Bike Boy?”

“The person who’s got the power to do this is Mike Bush, the Chief Commissioner. So we need him to come to the party. We’ve got the brief of evidence ready to go. I’ve done it. It’s 440 pages long. So we’re about to give that to him, and he’s got the power to say yes. So we’ll see what he says. If he says no, we know which way he leans politically, I would say, but he’s the only one who’s got the power to open this.”

Quotes drawn from The Cheryl Lacey Show: “Bike Boy 000: Wrong Call. What Really Happened?”, 23 April 2026.

LISTEN TO THE FULL CONVERSATION

Bike Boy 000: Wrong Call. What really happened?

A conversation with Scott Hanley

LISTEN NOW

More COURAGEOUS CONVERSATIONS

SOLD: 50 million slaves billions of buyers

It’s 2026, and an estimated 50 million people around the world are living in conditions of modern slavery. Trapped in forced labor, debt bondage, forced marriage, and sex trafficking.

While the world talks about globalism, climate catastrophes, human rights and DEI, one of humanity’s darkest ongoing crimes is ignored. 

There is always much to learn from history, but in the case of slavery, the first place to begin is within ourselves.

A conversation with Lawrence Rogak

LISTEN NOW

THE INSIDE JOB: Faces of the anti-American movement

It’s one thing when a foreign government turns hostile. It’s another when legal citizens, elected officials, and people whose ancestors built the USA start walking away from loyalty to the United States. A concerning and growing phenomenon of people who aren’t rejecting America out of ignorance or malice, but deliberate choice.

A conversation with Sharon Rondeau

LISTEN NOW

FROM TRADITION TO PROPOSITION: Can UK schools stand out from the crowd?

UK independent schools can no longer rely on reputation alone. Yet most still struggle to answer the question every parent is really asking: why you, and not the school down the road?

What do independent schools offer and what do they say they can actually offer? It’s no longer about the league tables.

Whether you’re a parent weighing a significant financial commitment, or a school leader wondering why you’re not converting - this one’s for you.

A conversation with Paul Dunstan

LISTEN NOW

This Wednesday 22nd April on 88.9WYNFM, Scott Hanley, former senior constable turned private investigator, is bringing his expertise and first hand experience to one of true crime’s hottest topics.

In 2013, he was a leading senior constable at Rosebud Police Station when teenage cyclist Ryan Meuleman and an SUV collided in the nearby suburb of Blairgowrie.

It quickly became known that former Victorian Premier Dan Andrews was involved and for Scott, the alarm bells were immediate.

“Given the high profile of Mr Andrews and the serious injuries to the child, we couldn’t understand why the Traffic Management Unit weren’t called,” he says. “This was an immediate red flag.”

Police records show the vehicle was being driven by Catherine Andrews, with the couple insisting it had come to a complete stop before being t-boned by Ryan’s bike - a version of events that Scott and many of his colleagues found difficult to accept.

Now retired from the force, Scott is the seeking truth - and that’s exactly what we’ll be discussing on 88.9WYNFM - The Cheryl Lacey Show, where curiosity meets courage.

PS: Bike Boy: The True Crime Podcast, that explores a Victorian political scandal and cyclist Ryan Meuleman’s alleged crash cover-up, has amassed over 500,000 verified downloads.

It sits among the top 1% of podcasts globally, and Season 2 launched to a staggering 75,000 downloads in its first 24 hours.

MORE CONVERSATIONS for this week…

More COURAGEOUS CONVERSATIONS

From 7% to 3%: British Independent Schools in Free Fall

Since 2010, over 1,100 schools have closed and the pace is accelerating. VAT on fees, rising costs, and a co-dependency on international enrolments have pushed closures past 100 since January 2025, with some forecasts suggesting the sector could shrink from 7% of pupils to just 3%. For independent schools survival means charitable status, mergers, or acquisition. There’s a solutions gap - correction - a solution being ignored.

A Conversation with Former MP Andrew Lewer

LISTEN HERE

Overflow: All Eyes On Principal Wellbeing

Most principals are dedicated to their schools, their staff, and their students, no matter the pressure. But dedication alone isn’t enough. With so many challenges facing school leaders, professional support isn’t optional, it’s essential.

A conversation with Australian Principals Federation President, Andrew Cock

LISTEN HERE

Think Literacy: The 5 Elements and More

Reading got the wars. Writing got the leftovers. Cramming standards into an already overloaded curriculum has left almost no room for students to actually write.

A conversation with Dr. Andy Johnson Professor of Literacy

LISTEN HERE

Lawful Rebellion: ASIO The Sunset Clause

A bill moving through parliament seeks to make ASIO’s powers indefinite. No sunset clause, no expiry, no end date. But we have a long and legitimate tradition of lawful rebellion, of scrutinising, challenging and resisting laws that threaten the freedoms this country is built on.

“What does this bill mean for ordinary Australians, and what does it look like to push back, lawfully, loudly and together?”

A conversation with Common Law Commentator Mike Holt

LISTEN HERE

The United Nations: Power, Greed, Soulless

The United Nations sells a vision of peace and unity, but its foundations tell a harsher story. Bankrolled by John D. Rockefeller Jr., its headquarters rose where a neighbourhood once stood, wiped away to make room for global power.

Their language is peace but the reality is leverage, money, and influence concentrated at the highest levels.

A conversation with Lawrence Rogak US Lawyer and Commentator

LISTEN HERE

Harvard University’s “Human Flourishing” program, housed within its Institute for Quantitative Social Science, began in 2016. With an investment of $43.4 million USD and data from over 200,000 paying participants, it represents a decade-long effort to measure what has been debated for centuries.

Their materials frame flourishing as a multidimensional ideal, one that necessarily includes an individual’s relationship with their community.

Schools have embraced this initiative with good intentions, engaging in questions of happiness, meaning, virtue, and purpose. But the questions themselves are not new.

Consider one of Harvard’s measures:
“I am always able to give up some happiness now for greater happiness later.”
(0 = not true of me, 10 = completely true of me)

This is simply delayed gratification, something Aristotle explored through the concept of phronesis, or practical wisdom.

Another asks:
“Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?”
(0 = not true of me, 10 = completely true of me)

Is this not, in essence, a compression of Aristotle’s broader philosophical project into a single question?

Ayn Rand would likely reject it outright. For Rand, flourishing is not something you feel your way into, it is something you think, choose, and reason your way toward. From that perspective, the question itself is unclear: worthwhile to whom, and by what standard?

The language of “flourishing” may seem new in education, but it’s only a reframing of familiar ideas that still fall short.

Read more

Elon Musk thinks about education the way he thinks about rockets - question every assumption, strip it to its fundamentals, and rebuild from the ground up.

He’s a first principles thinker. That’s exactly how I think about education too.

His expertise is in applying first principles thinking to technology, start-ups and expansion. Mine is in education systems and the pipeline to work, life - what education is, its purpose - and the value created and exchanged.

Elon and I are looking at education in the same way, but from different vantage points.

So when I read his views on education, I find myself wanting to continue the conversation - to learn more.

Are you a first principles thinker too?

The Assembly Line

Musk calls the grade-level system a ridiculous notion. And he’s spot on. Education systems have - for decades - focussed on one question for every learner that has nothing to do with what they already know, understand and apply. It’s, ‘How old are you?’

“People are not objects on an assembly line. It shouldn’t be that you’ve got these grades where people move in lockstep.”

- Elon Musk

Many educators would agree the industrial model is not fit for purpose. Others wouldn’t. Either way, it’s a model that still exists. Our thinking must answer, ‘In what capacity, and for whose benefit?’

Way back in time, students were seated in rows according to educational level, monitors sitting at the front would take instructions and distribute materials. Timetables, bells, rigid class structures, were all designed around the efficient use of human resources.

The goal was noble. Common schools - a democratic approach to education. Equality of opportunity for all, regardless of background.

What it failed to realise - or perhaps deliberately intended - was that controlling what happened inside the classroom was less about education and more about democratic socialist aims.

Equal access, yes. But equal and contained.

This model hasn’t disappeared. It can still be seen in the timetable, the bell and the age-based classroom. It’s also very much in the collective bargaining for teacher salaries and entitlements.

‘Humans are wired to learn, rather than being socially constructed.’

- First Principles on Education^®

It’s worth asking – honestly – who do we think critically about over this model; students, educators, unions, government, businesses, families and society more broadly?

What would teachers lose? Certainty? What would they gain if it was overhauled? Professional recognition through merit? What about the rest?

First principles thinking requires that of us.

What Musk and I would agree on is adapting to suit local community needs.

‘Individuals differ.’

-First Principles on Education^®

At some point we have to choose. We can’t critique the model on one hand and expect the same benefits on the other. The system is the problem because the system is us. We must think seriously about this decades long habit of blind acceptance in a model that is not fit for purpose.

The engine and the screwdriver

Musk’s teaching analogy cuts straight to how we sequence learning.

“Here’s the engine. Now let’s take it apart. How are we going to take it apart? Oh, you need a screwdriver. That’s what the screwdriver is for.”

- Elon Musk

Reality before abstraction. Problem before resource. Context before content.

Every educator who has watched a student switch on the moment something becomes relevant knows exactly what he’s describing. Every educator who has watched a student switch off when they can’t yet see the purpose, knows the cost of getting it backwards.

Most teachers know this instinctively. Many still teach to the screwdriver first. Knowing you can change how you teach and doing so are two very different commitments.

This is where his instinct and my work come together.

‘All pursuits require prerequisites.’

-First Principles on Education®

Get the sequence right - reality first - and education becomes self-propelling.

Where I’d push the conversation further

“Everything is available basically for free. You can learn anything you want for free.” Elon Musk

He’s right that access to information has never been greater. But consider what actually happens when we learn. We absorb knowledge through our senses. We examine, compare, categorise and connect it. Concepts and ideas emerge from that process.

Unlimited access to knowledge without these foundations doesn’t accelerate education and the learner doesn’t flourish. Nor does the teacher. There’s a risk that the least effort will become the most attractive next step.

‘Resources offer potential, not certainty.’

-First Principles on Education

Musk’s technology lens and my education systems lens need each other. He can see how to make information radically accessible. I’m interested in what has to be in place for that access to be understood. Those are different problems. Both matter.

Then there’s this:

“If you’re thinking, like, what is education? You’re basically downloading data and algorithms into your brain. And it’s actually amazingly bad in conventional education. “ — Elon Musk

That question – What is education? – is the most fundamental question of all. I’ve sat with it long enough to arrive at a definition I’m prepared to defend. Getting there took thinking, learning, curiosity and no small amount of courage. Whether the answer is absolute is beside the point. The willingness to go that far and desire more thinking and talking - is.

I don’t know if Elon has gone there. That’s exactly why I’d love to have this conversation with him.

Technology and educational philosophy are at a tipping point.

Without answering that question - really answering it - school and education will remain confused. And if they remain confused, we achieve nothing more than rebuilding the industrial model with better technology and different screw drivers and call it reform. We won’t be able to unpack, rebuild or improve the engine.

That’s where the conversation gets interesting. And I don’t think he’d walk away from it either.

https://gotranscript.com/public/elon-musk-on-education-college-degrees-learning-and-innovative-schooling

First Principles on Education@ is a philosophy and framework for thinking clearly about what education is, what it is for, and how institutions can be designed around those answers.

Leave a comment or get in touch if you’d like to explore it further.

NOT TO BE MISSED CONVERSATIONS

TRANS. TRUTH AND TRUMP: Reality is Non-Negotiable

Sex is biological. Gender is a social construct. And a defence force exists to win wars, not to serve as a platform for social experimentation. The Trump administration made decisive steps to restore clear, science-based definitions of male and female across federal policy, military readiness, standards, and cohesion. Objective reality is non-negotiable. Isn’t it? Straightforward and prepared for anything Lawrence and Cheryl are unafraid to say what many are thinking.

A conversation with Lawrence Rojak

LISTEN ON APPLE PODCAST

BEN ROBERTS SMITH: From hero to handcuffs

Ben Roberts-Smith’s story is unlike any in Australian military history. Decorated with the Victoria Cross, celebrated as a national hero, then  a defamation trial that first relied on ‘balance of probabilities’ to criminal charges he now faces. And, the deeper question: what does this means for the Australian Defence Force if this is how Australia treats its bravest soldiers. Who will be willing to serve?

A conversation with Mike Holt

LISTEN ON APPLE PODCAST

INDISPENSABLE: The principals right hand

The EA role in a school is unlike any other. Not a teacher, nor a general admin role, but absolutely central to everything.

In this episode, we explore the unique identity, influence, and professional value of executive assistants in education, and why school leadership simply couldn’t function without them.

A conversation with Kristine Nivan

LISTEN ON APPLE PODCAST

WHERE’S DAD? The nuclear family and the men children need

It’s a question too many children are asking. What does relinquishment of the nuclear family, the replaceable role of fathers, and the narrative in schools tell us about what children need when dad isn’t in the picture? What is society telling our children when being brave and masculine could be the first step toward arrest?

A conversation with Peter Richardson.

LISTEN ON APPLE PODCAST

When you read the words First Principles On Education^®, there’s a reasonable chance your first thought is ‘interesting but not essential’.

Reading on, you notice an offering - ‘wait and see’ is the next likely thought, followed by, ‘when others are showing interest, or government gives the nod, I’ll join in - not before.’

In the education sector the next best thing is never far away.

Remember the Cuisenaire rods, phonics, learning styles, or John and Betty (Dick and Jane). What about nonsense words, De Bono’s six thinking hats, whole language and inquiry learning. Direct instruction, self-directed learning and high impact teaching strategies (HITS) have also been in the mix. Evidence based practice, flourishing and all manner of ‘leadership adjectives’ are now there too.

The instinct to wait has been a natural one for educators for some time - be it right or wrong.

But there’s another instinct.

A question that every teacher asks every day: “What does this student need?”

It’s the right question to ask.

What follows, however, is where things become less certain.

“Can I provide this need? If so, how? If not, who can?”

These are the questions that should come next, but that’s not guaranteed. The foundations that would make answering them straightforward are not always in place.

Then there’s the question that goes deeper still.

“How has this need arisen? Is it new, or has it been carried forward from something previously unaddressed or misaligned?

That something is likely ownership.

We are very good at accepting ideas and very practised at moving on from them. What we are less practised in is owning them - the slower, more demanding work of thinking them through and deciding what we actually believe.

That is what First Principles On Education^® is about. The colloquium is where that happens.

Ownership of thoughts, ideas, philosophy and action is what unfolds.

And let’s be clear about what it’s not.

There’s no off the shelf solution that tells you which principles to adopt. You won’t get handed a list of values to laminate and display. You don’t arrive expecting ready-made answers for your context, your community, your colleagues.

None of this is available — because that’s not what honest intellectual work involves.

What the colloquium does do is create the conditions; the time, the structure, the shared language, for you and the people you work with to explore, to question, to discard and to build something that you own.

The outcome, when that work is done well, is an organisation where principles are agreed and genuinely held in common, where every person understands the purpose and vision they are serving, and takes real ownership of the actions to achieve it.

It’s challenging. At times it can be confronting.

But leaders who have had the courage to do this work have found it among the most rewarding professional experiences of their careers.

They discover what has been available all along — that their thoughts and actions belong to them. That extraordinary possibilities are ready and waiting.

So don’t wait for a public date.

Take the lead.

Host a First Principles Colloquium for your organisation, or for a cluster of organisations you respect and trust.

That is, after all, what first principles look like in practice.

Leadership Colloquiums

A Not To Be Missed Conversation

Reading Between The Lines

Tasmania’s Statewide Literacy Plan. Is it enough?

A conversation with Simon Matthews

Executive Director Independent Schools Tasmania

Tasmania has rolled out its literacy plan. A big budget and the kind of language that makes it very hard to argue against - explicit teaching, evidence-based practice, best practice frameworks. 

But what happens when the words we use are so accepted, so unquestioned, that teachers stop thinking and stay comfortable with being handed the answers?

Critical thinking isn’t just a skill we should be teaching kids. It’s a professional obligation teachers owe to all, especially their profession.

And, the uncomfortable question: in a culture that praises teachers for working hard and showing up, are we trading accountability for applause? 

Good intentions don’t teach children to read. Critical professionals do.

LISTEN HERE

Join The Conversations This Week

Kristine Niven: Found of EA’s in Education

Melbourne Australia

Rob Profitt White: Government Advisor Mathematics

Auckland New Zealand

Morning Show Drive Program - 88.9WYNFM (7 to 9am Wednesday Melbourne Time)

Or live online same time at www.wynfm.org.au

In the UK, independent schools are closing at a rate of two per week. To survive, attracting international students has become big business. Yet many schools spend more on brokers and international travel to secure these students than they actually earn once the students are enrolled.

New Zealand, like many countries, faces a severe teacher shortage. Low pay, heavy workloads, and burnout have been widely cited as major factors, yet there is little sign of relief.

In the United States, a 2025 analysis suggests that more than 365,000 unqualified citizens across 48 states were employed as teachers to address similar staff shortages.1

Australia is under the same pressure. Some graduate teachers start on $78,000, a figure one state government cites as proof it values educators. But pay varies across the country, and professional recognition is measured less by skill or achievement than by adherence to the collective system.

Merit-based pay doesn’t exist, leaving individual performance largely invisible.

Could this be intentional?

Consecutive governments, touting free markets and democracy, seem to have structured the system in ways that devalue individual teachers, favouring collective models.

Workplace conditions negotiated with the support of unions frequently raise ‘overtime’ as a point of contention, yet teachers are salaried, they are not on an hourly wage. Their conditions already cover planning, marking, and other non-teaching responsibilities and factors in the nine-month work year and 12-week flexible leave arrangements negotiated decades ago.

One must also wonder, if non-qualified people can supervise or even teach students, how can the value of professional teachers ever be measured or negotiated?

With little competition and no reward for merit it seems more and more likely that education systems are built around collectivist principles.

Have consecutive governments in many countries been working in sync to shape education systems this way?

There is only one way to find out.

We must begin asking some fundamental questions:

What is education?

What is its purpose?

And what is its desired outcome?

Being curious and courageous enough to ask these questions will reveal a path forward to these foundational questions that must be answered.

What is the constitutional and legal framework of our country?

How do we ensure it is taught and applied with truth and integrity?

Only then can educators gain the recognition and respect they have long sought, while education is rightly understood as the responsibility of every citizen.

TWO DAY LEADERSHIP COLLOQUIUMS

Leadership teams navigate constant complexity. It's the nature of working with and for people. When something isn’t working, the instinct is to change what we do – our applied practice.

But applied practice is rarely the source of the problem, rather the visible consequence. The real work is deeper: understanding the principles that should be driving decisions in the first place. Without that clarity, changed practice is temporary and problems return in a different form.

Our Clarity Begins Here

What is education? It is a question that shouldn’t need to be asked. However, to assume we already have the answer is a major contributor to the problems

leadership teams are experiencing. Answering this question is where the colloquium begins, followed by two more guiding questions. The exploration of all three lays the groundwork for our work together.

COLLOQUIUMS

FROM PRINCIPLES TO PRACTICE

Strengthen how your team leads with clarity, principle and purpose

WHAT KEEPS YOU UP AT NIGHT HAS AN ANSWER

A two day experience from insight to action

YOUR LITERACY STRATEGY IS ENDING

What comes next?

DOWNLOAD TO LEARN MORE

NOT TO BE MISSED CONVERSATIONS

CLASS IN CRISIS: Can Independent schools think differently?

Independent schools are rich in history—but under real pressure. Fees are rising beyond reach, parents are squeezed, and teachers are leaving in droves. With a growing recruitment crisis, shifting attitudes, and a profession losing status, something isn’t working. Can the sector rethink, reinvent, and recover—or is it running out of time?

A conversation with Christine Cunniffe

WHEN DUTY OF CARE WALKS OUT: Who’s in charge?

When teachers go on strike all manner of issues come to the fore. The home-partnerships vanishes, the state says and does as it pleases and the Commonwealth stays true to form - they’re only in education for the money. There couldn’t be a better time for parents, grandparents and educators to know and understand the law. 

A conversation with Andrew Dalgleish

EDUCATION IS THE ONLY WAY TO TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY

There’s a difference between being governed and being controlled, and most Australians have never been taught to see it.  Civic education isn’t taught in schools. Our political class are the authors and beneficiaries of an uneducated and disengaged public. Dedicated educators hold the key to breaking a cycle of systemic manipulation that thrives on our ignorance. Are you one?

A Conversation with Sam Muscat

LEADERSHIP AND THE FREE WORLD: On you mark. Get set. TRUMP

In a world of rapid change and possibility, President Donald Trump takes a different leadership path to what the world has learned to expect and accept.

Trump’s approach to Iran, for instance, is forcing a new kind of accountability on the global stage. Where are the US allies? Who is advocating peace? What’s behind the obvious - it’s not just about oil?

Trump supporters see a leader willing to take risks, avoid unnecessary conflict, negotiate and redefine the Free World by a new kind of dialogue and strength.

They see strength, sprinkled with deliberate confusion to disguise bold decisive action. 

On your mark. Get set. Trump.

A conversation with Lawrence Rogak

VOTE THE PARTY LINE: Is there no other choice?

The realities of Australia’s governance are hitting us hard. Stuck in the two party loop - a pseudo socialist norm. Are we starting to wake up? Do Australians actually have a way out, or are we locked into the two-party cycle by design?

A conversation with Peter Richardson

Read more

Not every struggling teacher is a beginner finding their feet. Some are veterans who’ve stopped growing.

There is a persistent problem of teacher underperformance - for some schools - across systems and across countries - with little discussion about far reaching implications or rectification.

Some educators show up unprepared year after year, who’ve lost their curiosity for learning, and who drain school resources while delivering mediocre results.

While systemic challenges allow chronic underperformance to persist, a more local approach is possible.

Can schools afford to carry teachers who’ve given up?

And what would it take to create accountability that actually works?

Join the conversation with Dr. Paul Teys - Principal Consultant NSW, Australia

Listen on Buzzsprout

More of my latest conversations:

Follow the Money - The Ilhan Omar Investigation: A Conversation with Sharon Rondeau

Rep. Ilhan Omar is under federal and congressional investigation. House Oversight is probing how her husband’s wealth exploded to $30 million in just one year. The DOJ is examining her finances. Questions about potential connections to Minnesota’s massive social services fraud scandal are being asked.

Omar denies wrongdoing and says she’s being targeted.

But, there’s still the alleged marriage to her brother and questions of citizenship.

When allegations meet investigations, we have a responsibility to pay attention. Sharon Rondeau has her eye on the detail and won’t stop until the truth is told.

Listen on Buzzsprout

Socialism Always Fails: A Conversation with Lawrence Rogak

What is socialism? If you’re all for it, your definition will be different from those who know better. Forget the propaganda - we’re exposing socialism’s catastrophic failures on two fronts.

From Havana’s decades of poverty to New York’s new experiment in economic self-destruction, socialist ideology inevitably leads to the same outcome: broken promises, economic ruin, and human suffering.

Listen on Buzzsprout

Australia The Concealed Colony: A conversation with Mike Holt

There’s a troubling legal argument circulating, ‘Australia the Concealed Colony’, that challenges everything we think we know about Australian sovereignty: that despite presenting itself to the world as an independent nation, Australia is a colony under British rule.

The claim is that Australia is recognized as an independent sovereign nation state and a UN member, yet our governments remain extensions of UK governance.

Australian politicians, under this interpretation, are agents of a foreign power - Britain - not representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia’s people.

The implications are profound.

If true, Australians have been denied their right to self-determination, and every government action since federation lacks legal validity.

Listen on Buzzsprout

There’s a troubling legal argument circulating, ‘Australia the Concealed Colony’, that challenges everything we think we know about Australian sovereignty: that despite presenting itself to the world as an independent nation, Australia is a colony under British rule.

Australia The Concealed Colony

40.5MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The claim is that Australia is recognized as an independent sovereign nation state and a UN member, yet our governments remain extensions of UK governance.

Australian politicians, under this interpretation, are agents of a foreign power - Britain - not representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia’s people.

The implications are profound. If true, Australians have been denied their right to self-determination, and every government action since federation lacks legal validity.

What largely remains unknown is that Australia’s constitution was voted on by a mere 10% of the population. And amendments made to the original constitution were not voted on at all. In other words, the constitution itself may well be invalid OR it’s the very document that guaranteed our identity as a colony of the UK.

The document is some 400 pages long. However, reading the first 8 pages suffices.

And an historical timeline is provided giving context to how Australian’s have allegedly been deceived by the very people elected to represent us.

Here are some of those events…

1919: The Forgotten Transfer

When Australia signed the Treaty of Versailles and joined the League of Nations, sovereignty was supposedly transferred from the British Parliament to the Australian people. Yet this transfer was never recognised by the legal profession or Australian governments. The bureaucratic systems established in 1788 - where officials were “public masters” rather than public servants - persists today.

1945: The UN Contradiction

Australia presented itself as an independent nation to join the United Nations. At this point, Britain legally relinquished any right to sovereignty over Australia. Or so it seemed.

1998: Justice Hayne and the High Court

On December 15, 1998, Justice Hayne of the High Court made a remarkable statement: “Australia has domestic sovereignty but not international sovereignty.” In other words, we are still a colony. His job, however, was to “protect the system.”

1999: The Foreign Power Problem

The UK was declared a “foreign power” under its own legislation. This creates a constitutional crisis: Section 44 of the Commonwealth Constitution refers to “legislation of UK”—but if the UK is foreign, how can it have legislative authority?

2000: Bill of Rights

The Federal Court ruled that Magna Carta and the 1688 Bill of Rights—foundational documents protecting civil liberties—are invalid in Australia. Australians, uniquely among OECD nations, have no Bill of Rights.

The Constitutional Gap

The “Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act” of July 9, 1900, is a UK Act. The UK retains full authority to amend the first eight clauses; only the ninth is “the Constitution” itself. But here’s the kicker: the Constitution doesn’t define what “the Commonwealth” actually is.

Where are we now?

A document has been submitted to 186 UN member states arguing these points, reportedly with support from 80 members and 11 nations.

The requests are extraordinary:

• Establish an International Tribunal to confirm the above facts and declare all Australian governments invalid under international law

• Create an International Criminal Tribunal to prosecute individuals aiding and abetting the continued breach

• Safeguard Australians until implementation of a constitution agreed by plebiscite

• Declare Australia’s UN representative persona non grata

Australia The Concealed Colony

40.5MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Whether this document, ‘Australia the Concealed Colony’, represents a genuine constitutional crisis or simply the untidy paperwork of nation-building remains an open question. But it’s a question that should invite curiosity from media, government, opposition and we the people.

If Australian’s have no recognised civil rights and our governments lack legal validity, who is behind the silence and why?

OR if this is just smoke and mirrors, let’s hear from our politicians.

Have we been living in a constitutional fiction for over a century?

Surely, we deserve an answer.

Read the 1998 High Court Summary - click the link below

High Court Summary

Dixon praised the coherence the policy had delivered.

“If you walk into schools there’s a common language, an understanding of how children learn and what is good teaching practice, so we’re in a pretty good place there.”

But he added that this was not sufficient.

“My job is to move to the next step.”

That next step, Dixon explained, would expand the breadth of the curriculum, with a greater focus on the arts, foreign languages, and sport.

“It’s not just about maths and literacy,” he said.
“They are very important, but we’ve got to educate the whole child.”

(ABC News, 17 August 2011)

The Whole Child

The whole child approach to education is intended to give children the foundation they need to become well-rounded, healthy individuals. Schools that take this approach believe they can equip all children with the education and essential life skills required for them to reach their full potential.

As an educator, I see that this has far-reaching implications for educators and other staff working in schools. As a parent, it absolutely terrifies me.

The reason for my fears can be stated very simply: socialism.

Two Common Interpretations of “The Whole Child”

The Whole Child — Concept One

Some, but not all, research into this concept of the whole child suggests that many children live unfortunate lives - as a result of poverty or poor parenting on one hand, or due to being spoiled or leading a life deemed not worth living on the other. The assumption is that the role of school education is to remedy these problems.

It appears that government, researchers, and bureaucracy know best and that “best” involves giving schools greater authority and recognition across all areas of child development. That is, over the whole of the child’s life.

The Whole Child — Concept Two

In this concept, the focus is on the environment in which children learn - whether indoors, outdoors, or online. These surroundings include the social and cultural influences that operate wherever children learn and are taught.

We could celebrate these elements; they sing to parents wanting the best for their children. At the same time, we could be concerned, because they are open to interpretation. If stretched beyond what parents believe schools should be responsible for, the boundary between school education and life itself disappears.

The truth is that the where, when, what, how, and by whom moments of a child’s education can never be fully known or controlled, by their parents or anyone else.

Being responsible for a children’s education does not mean having the perfect setting to do it all on your own. This applies to home and school.

Socialism or Freedom to Parent

Dixon’s appeal to “the whole child” was an admission of - arrogance, ignorance, or intent.

By invoking “a common language,” Dixon missed the critical difference between socialism and respect for parents, children, and families.

Understanding is not the same as agreement. Without a shared language with agreed objective meaning, it is reasonable for parents to interpret “the whole child” as a government minister signalling an expanded role - one that blurs the boundary between schooling and raising children.

Under this framing, the state is no longer an assistant to parents, but the author of every child’s development — the whole child.

Once framed this way, parenting becomes, at best, a shared function — think home-school partnerships — and at worst, the slow extinction of parental authority, as decision-making is progressively relocated away from families and into state institutions.

Under this “whole child” ethos, school education becomes the entry point through which broader claims over a child’s life are legitimised.

Rightful Position - Wrongful Response

Families who resist this overreach have been subject to processes that escalate from monitoring to sanction, and in extreme cases, to removal. Bullying. Trespass notices. Court appearances. Restricted access to their own children - or access denied altogether. In some cases, children have been taken from their parents permanently.

Do not assume this does not happen or has not happened. These actions operate through schools and school systems. Each step is legitimised or orchestrated by political parties, government departments, and ultimately, the court system.

All that is required is dedicated parents reclassified as rogues, a risk, as dangers to the community.

Fifteen Years On

Dixon’s remarks were made fifteen years ago. The language of “the whole child,” combined with appeals to “common language” and “the next step,” signalled support for a continued shift in authority from parents to systems, from families to institutions, and ultimately to the state positioning itself as author of the child’s development.

We have learned that politicians who speak out against the party line get punished. Mr Dixon was not. That absence of consequence matters.

It is reasonable to conclude that these were not casual remarks, nor merely commentary. They functioned as instruction – setting direction, legitimising action, and normalising outcomes that followed.

Parents do not need permission to raise their children. They never have.

And no system, however well-intentioned, has the moral authority to replace them.

We’ve got short memories in this country.

Last year, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Labor were taking bows at the UN for their “world-leading” under-16 social media ban. Big headlines. Big international support from some other leaders.

A smarmy politician using the death of a teenager from a country town to push an agenda of power control and political abuse – all wrapped up in ‘care and concern’ . A classic case of the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

But rewind a few years before that and you’ll find then Liberal PM Scott Morrison, Nationals Barnaby Joyce, and Attorney General Michaelia Cash driving that very agenda – and with digital ID for every Australian.

https://web.archive.org/web/20211012035436/https://www.zdnet.com/article/calls-to-id-social-media-users-is-just-another-morrison-government-rush-job/

https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/10/25/social-media-age-verification-plan

Different parties. Same goal. Shared outcome.

Read more

The pattern in my analytics is revealing: the more important the issue, the higher the unsubscribe rate.

Sure, we’re drowning in information.

Cold callers and sales pitches are easy to dismiss. But what about the emails that challenge us?

Time-constrained and trigger-weary, have we become too efficient at hitting unsubscribe with anything that doesn’t align with what we already believe.

I’ve been guilty of this too. But over time, I’ve learned how to apply my behaviour to my inbox.

I’m one who thinks out loud - which can be to my own detriment - but always with a sincere determination to understand others and myself better.

It’s too easy to look in the mirror and agree with what you already know. But that doesn’t increase knowledge or, more importantly, comprehension and impact.

So when correspondence arrives from organisations or individuals whose views differ from mine, I pause. I skim and set it aside for a day or two.

Then I return with fresh eyes and think critically: What do I disagree with? How would I counter this view? What do I agree with? What mutual value do we both bring to this topic?

This is where real learning happens.

Take 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant. I disagree with his assertion that “we can be certain of nothing,” but still I asked the question : how could he wield such influence?

Was it the belief itself or how he communicated his philosophy?

By learning more about Kant I could better appreciate what has me align with Ayn Rand’s view that reality exists as an objective absolute, independent of human consciousness, and Aristotle’s law of identity - everything that exists has a specific nature.

Had I dismissed Kant, what a missed opportunity to sharpen my own principles against his philosophy.

What a waste for an educationist in particular.

The unsubscribe button is easy. It’s efficient. Sometimes it’s necessary. But before you click it - especially when the message challenges you - pause.

Ask yourself: Am I unsubscribing for ease or from an opportunity to think more deeply?

The mirror will always show you what you already know.

Education is in the comfortable discomfort of better understanding different views.

In this unflinching conversation, Human rights advocate Menachem Vorchheimer - an 8th generation Australian Jewish - discusses the transformation from a place of genuine safety and social harmony to today's fractured reality.

He likens our plight to that which Rudy Giulliani endured and overcame by enacting the Theory of Broken Windows.

Essential listening for anyone seeking to understand the forces reshaping Australian society and the sanitised conclusions of government.

A reflection on a profound conversation from my weekly radio show on 88.9 WYFM

On Wednesday I had one of those conversations that stays with you.

My guest was human rights advocate Menachem Vorchheimer - an eighth-generation Australian of Jewish faith who remembered an Australia where doors stayed unlocked, footy and cricket were popular pastimes, and kids disappeared on their bikes until dinner time.

The Australia he knew as a child has changed.

And in our conversation, he was honest about why: this isn’t an antisemitism problem or one of Zionism or anti-Zionism, despite how those terms have become the narrative dominating politics and mainstream media.

It’s simpler and more frightening than that.

Radical Islam and radical ideology teaches people to hate based on characteristics.

They’re not looking for someone in particular. They’re looking for anyone who fits what they’ve been taught to hate.

And Australia is giving this ideology fertile ground.

That’s what makes this fundamentally an educational crisis. Education that’s not limited to schools, or simply about children, teenagers or the next ‘GEN’.

It’s about all of us.

• We must all think critically and explore facts, opinions, and falsehoods in search of the truth.

• We must all learn about history – perhaps the best way - through an understanding of geography.

• We must all learn and model the difference between legitimate criticism and prejudice.

• We must all lern between questioning ideas and targeting people.

And, we must all learn the two most important fundamental principles - First Do No Harm and Take Responsibility for your Actions.

This education, is up to all of us.

It requires honesty about what’s happening, courage in how we address it, and commitment to teaching the eradication of extremism and fear.

Menachem wasn’t asking anyone to take sides in politics or international conflicts.

He was stating what we all need and desire - the right to live without fear - in the country his family has called home for eight generations.

Our doors may be locked now, but our hearts and minds don’t have to be.

I’m deeply honoured to share it with you - particularly as it will resonate with so many raised during those free and safe times.

I encourage you to listen to this conversation and share it with your colleagues, friends, and family.

Choose Podcast Channel

It’s one that will certainly stay with me.

This conversation aired on The Cheryl Lacey Show 88.9 WYFM, Wednesday mornings between 7 and 9 am.(Melbourne time). Now available on podcast channels.