Mortgage fraud that will smash Australia’s financial system!

Australia’s leading expert in mortgage fraud BY BANKS, Denise Brailey of the Banking and Finance Consumers Support Association (BFCSA), gave the following presentation to the CEC’s 30 June seminar in Perth. Denise exposes the mechanics of the massive mortgage fraud perpetrated by Australia’s banks, with the complicity of the regulator APRA, to pump up one of the biggest housing and debt bubbles in the world. This is the same fraud that fuelled the US sub-prime bubble which triggered the global financial crisis 10 years ago this month, and will likewise crash Australia’s banks and economy when the bubble bursts here. Denise digs deep into the scandal that the royal commission was only able to briefly touch on, due to its restricted terms of reference and time.




Citizens Electoral Council of Australia

Royal Commission spotlights the mortgage fraud that could implode the banking system

In its first fortnight of hearings, the Banking Royal Commission drew the nation’s attention to the huge problem of mortgage fraud. The hearings showed that each of the big four banks, which together control 80 per cent of banking in Australia, have engaged in fraud on a massive scale. The fraud is not confined to the margins of the home loan business, but infects the majority of mortgages, which means most borrowers can’t afford their loans. The bottom line is there is nothing real propping up the Australian housing market—it is a bubble of lies, and it would only take a slight shock to burst the bubble and bring down the entire banking system.

Until now, a small number of individuals and organisations, including the Citizens Electoral Council, have been warning of this danger. The Royal Commission has forced everyone to look at it. A shocked Robert Gottliebsen fretted in the 21 March Australian Business Review that the extent of the fraud means the Reserve Bank shouldn’t raise interest rates. “Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe must [be] becoming increasingly concerned at the revelations at the banking royal commission”, Gottliebsen wrote. “Lowe now knows that some if not all the banks have let their credit standards slip…. The false income statements on bank loan applications are contributing to widespread mortgage stress because incomes have not been rising. If Lowe increased interest rates it would cause a lot of people to throw in the towel and sell up and if that resulted in a setback to the housing market the loan dominoes falling would cause considerable bank losses.”

Analysts at giant investment bank UBS went further, warning that a possible consequence of the Royal Commission exposing the fraud could be a credit crunch—like the total breakdown in bank lending that happened in the 2008 global financial crisis. UBS analyst George Tharenou told ABC News reporter Stephen Letts on 24 March: “In this scenario there is a risk of a pick-up in arrears as existing borrowers become financially stressed, and could precipitate a broad-based credit event.”

Mortgage fraud worse than reported

Mortgage fraud is a crisis, even worse than revealed in the Royal Commission. The most authoritative analysis comes from Denise Brailey of the Banking and Finance Consumers Support Association (BFCSA), who estimates that 80 per cent of all mortgages are “sub-prime” interest-only loans, of which 70 per cent of borrowers don’t know they are interest-only.

Mrs Brailey is one of Australia’s leading experts on bank fraud. A trained criminologist, for decades she has advocated on behalf of thousands of bank victims to save their homes. She has also testified before numerous Parliamentary inquiries.

The BFCSA has made a submission to the Royal Commission, which reveals how the fraud is perpetrated. The information comes from the thousands of cases Denise Brailey has worked through personally, and her interviews with countless victims and mortgage brokers. She explained the key elements of the fraud in a two-part interview with The CEC Report on 22 March. (Click here to view Part 1.)

The BFCSA submission exposes:

  • The mortgage fraud is driven by the banks, not brokers. The banks employ Business Development Managers to give brokers 30 hours of minimal training, which includes encouraging the brokers to practice on their families—this has led to many brokers’ family members also losing their homes due to unaffordable loans.
  • The components of the “black box” of the fraud machine include the (usually) 11-page Loan Application Form, of which the borrowers only see three pages, while the balance is filled out according to banks’ specifications; and the “serviceability calculator”, which the banks control and brokers can only access with a password, and which ignores actual living expenses in favour of the Henderson Poverty Index that assumes all borrowers live on bread and water.
  • The unaffordability of loans is hidden for the first 3-5 years by various buffer loans, including credit cards with large limits and personal overdrafts, which the borrowers use to make their initial repayments. On average, the borrower’s debt increases by $150,000 in the first five years. The need for buffers proves the loans are unaffordable. When the buffers run out, banks avert defaults by refinancing the loans.
  • The banks securitise these dodgy loans, and on-sell them to investors as Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS). It is the payment stream that is securitised, but the investors wouldn’t know that the payments are not coming from the incomes of the borrowers, but from extra credit from the banks—a huge Ponzi scheme at the heart of Australia’s financial system.

Prepare for a crash

The shocking level of fraud in mortgage lending is a huge, immediate threat to Australia’s banks and economy. The dramatic rise in house prices since 2000 has completely distorted the Australian economy, such that financial services (dominated by mortgage lending), real estate and construction are Australia’s three largest economic sectors, and collectively account for more than a quarter of all economic activity. The government must face the reality, informed by the Royal Commission and the BFCSA, that mortgage fraud, and not real demand, has fuelled the extraordinary expansion of these sectors, which means it’s a house of cards that could come crashing down from just a small interest rate rise, or any other event that drives up the cost of living for mortgage-stressed borrowers. A rise in defaults will crash the housing market, destroy the jobs of hundreds of thousands of construction workers, bankrupt the big banks which have made mortgages more than 60 per cent of their business, and plunge Australia into economic chaos.

The CEC calls on the government to take two actions in response to the mortgage fraud and the economic threat it has created:

  1. Expand the powers and duration of the Royal Commission, so it can investigate every aspect of the criminal fraud in the system, especially the complicity of the regulators APRA and ASIC, without hindrance, and hear testimony from real experts such as Denise Brailey;
  2. Implement a structural, “Glass-Steagall” separation of the banking system, which will be a firewall to protect the real economy from a banking crash, and will stop banks from the gambling in mortgage backed securities and other derivatives that has been integral to their mortgage control fraud.

Click here for a free copy of the CEC’s full-colour pamphlet explaining the need to separate the banks, Glass-Steagall Now!




Mortgage fraud is the dirty secret that could spark a financial meltdown, economist warns

YOU DON’T need a “good job” to get a mortgage if your loan documents boost your salary by $288,000. But the consequences are frightening. 16, 201610:26AM

A Westpac customer claims their income and assets were massively inflated by the bank.Source:Supplied

MORTGAGE fraud by brokers and banks could bring on a financial meltdown, an economic researcher has warned.

As at least three of the major banks investigate allegedly dodgy loans to Chinese buyers, LF Economics founder Lindsay David says fraudulent lending is rife in Australia’s property market — and that we should all be scared.

NAB is the latest bank to launch an investigation after receiving a tip-off about a mortgage broker involved in a new tower development in Melbourne’s Southbank.

It comes as lenders instruct brokers to stop lending to overseas borrowers, after Westpac and ANZ launched an investigation into suspect loans worth almost $1 billion.

But Mr David believes the practice of doctoring paperwork on home loans is much broader than the banks would have us think.

NAB has been told a broker used Photoshop to inflate figures on pay slips and bank statements in order to secure loans for overseas buyers.

“We are investigating these claims and will refer them to authorities if and when appropriate,” a spokeswoman for the bank told

It is understood that Westpac has also been contacted about the mortgage broker, but the bank declined to say whether any investigation had been launched when contacted by


While the practice has long been portrayed as the work of a few bad apples in the competitive mortgage broking industry, evidence is emerging that senior banking employees themselves may be involved in mortgage fraud.

Last month, ABC business journalist Elysse Morgan revealed that her loan documents had been tampered with, telling Four Corners that she got them back from the bank to find that her income had been “massively inflated”.

“There was a line that says ‘your monthly income’, and for my husband it was correct, but for me it was inflated by around 38 per cent,” Ms Morgan said.

She said she had never found out who changed the figures on her loan application, and declined to name the bank when contacted by

It may sound extraordinary, but Ms Morgan is not alone. Hundreds of mum-and-dad borrowers have contacted the Banking and Finance Consumers Support Association with claims that lenders have forged their signatures on loan documents, with details of their personal income and assets bumped up by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

BFCSA President Denise Brailey says she has reported hundreds of such cases to the financial services regulator, ASIC.

Borrowers come to her for advice when they find themselves saddled with massive debts and their homes repossessed, after being sold loans that are beyond their ability to pay.

Are we on the verge of a meltdown in the style of <i>The Big Short</i>? Picture: Paramount

Are we on the verge of a meltdown in the style of The Big Short? Picture: ParamountSource:Supplied


When Ms Morgan saw that her income had been inflated, even though she was “on a pretty good salary”, she wondered: “What’s in the interest of the organisation or the institution to prop that up?”

“You’ve only got to think to yourself, ‘are they taking it from a double-A to a triple-A rating?” she said.

That’s exactly what Mr David believes is going on, and he warns of an impending disaster on the scale of the collapse of the United States housing bubble that sparked the global financial crisis of 2007-8.

If the banks are massaging the numbers on people’s loans to make them look more creditworthy, this would allow them to secure credit more cheaply from the institutions that lend to them.

The Australian economy relies on credit from these overseas sources to function, and the integrity of the banking system, including loanbook serviceability, is critical to the ongoing supply of capital that keeps the nation running.

Business journalist Elysse Morgan’s income was inflated by 38 per cent on her loan application.

Business journalist Elysse Morgan’s income was inflated by 38 per cent on her loan application.Source:Supplied

Mr David believes Australia’s lending market is littered with “junk loans”, arguing that there is no way the banks’ fast-growing loan books could be entirely made up of serviceable debt.

“We think we’re just scratching the surface on this,” he said. “It’s the biggest problem facing the economy.”

Even a relatively small downturn, or a housing market collapse, could bring the whole system crashing down, he said.

“It’s quite easy to sell off your asset when it’s appreciating in value, even if you can’t pay the loan,” Mr David said.

“But when the reverse happens and you overbank what your house eventually becomes worth, that’s when real problems begin.”

He argued that Australia’s spiralling household debt — now worth more than $2 trillion, in an economy that has a GDP of just $1.6 trillion — posed a danger to the economic system, which may only be acknowledged once “the bubble bursts and causes havoc”.

And with much of Australia’s economy linked to the property market, he said, the results could be catastrophic.

“There are just too many loans out there that are simply never going to be able to be repaid,” Mr David said.

“During a real estate boom, everyone is too busy speculating and making paper profits to care about what is happening … Only voices from the fringe see through the deception and raise concern, while the government, regulators, economics profession and the public are seemingly oblivious to the clear and present dangers.”


Among the documents in Ms Brailey’s files is a Westpac loan with a gross annual income allegedly inflated by a whopping $288,000.

The document forms part of LF Economics’ submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Penalties for White-Collar Crime, released earlier this month.

On it, the self-employed borrower, whose name is marked out for privacy reasons, has listed the alleged discrepancies: “motor vehicle — overinflated by $10,000; personal effects — overinflated by $100,000; monthly income — exaggerated by $14,500; rental income — exaggerated by $3456.

Westpac customers say their loan application forms were forged.

Westpac customers say their loan application forms were forged.Source:Supplied

Westpac customers say their loan application forms were forged.

Westpac customers say their loan application forms were forged.Source:Supplied

The Westpac customer also claims that the loan was written down as being for investment purposes when in fact it was their home; that its valuation was inflated by $25,000; that their listed occupation as an investment manager was incorrect, and that they owned an $85,000 share portfolio, when in fact they owned no shares at all.

Ms Brailey says she has thousands of documents on file showing similar cases.

Buyer’s agent and property commentator Catherine Cashmore also believes the problem is widespread.

“I’ve got clients it’s happened to, changes happen without them seeing,” Ms Cashmore said, disputing the banks’ line that they subject all loans to “rigorous checks”.


With voters growing frustrated by repeated scandals in the banking sector, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last month warned the institutions to lift their game.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has promised a Royal Commission into the sector if Labor wins the coming Federal Election, but has been light on detail about what it would cover.

ASIC, which Mr Lindsay accuses of “turning a blind eye” to mortgage fraud by banks, will soon get an extra $120 million over four years to crack down on the banking and finance sector.

Last month’s funding announcement was widely read as a move aimed at blunting Labor’s calls for a Royal Commission, which Treasurer Scott Morrison has said would “put at risk confidence in the banking system”.

None of the big four banks would provide detail of how they ensure loan application forms are accurate when contacted by

Westpac spokeswoman Lucy Wilson said the bank had “no tolerance for fraud”, with “systems in place to identify and thoroughly investigate any potential dishonest behaviour”.

“If fraudulent activity is discovered, we take action against those involved … liaising with the appropriate regulator and the police as required,” she said.

An ASIC spokesman said in a statement: “If someone suspects their loan application or any similar document had been altered without their knowledge or approval, that may well involve a serious misrepresentation and a complaint should be made as soon as possible.”

In its supplementary response to the parliamentary inquiry, the regulator said dishonest or fraudulent conduct was “more commonly found in relation to mortgage and finance brokers rather than lenders”.

Since taking over regulation of consumer credit in 2010, ASIC has investigated more than 50 mortgage brokers over alleged fraud relating to home loans and personal loans, with 13 criminal charges resulting in 11 convictions, including four guilty pleas. There have been at least 38 administrative actions, which usually means bannings.

The Finance Brokers Association of Australia, for its part, claims that mortgage fraud is “limited to a small section of the industry and is definitely not systemic and entrenched”.

FBAA chief executive Peter White conceded that loan tampering was a problem, but argued the practice was “not widespread”.

“Ninety nine per cent of brokers are doing the right thing but unfortunately, like in any industry, there is a tiny element who cross the line, particularly when it comes to the repayment of loans that rely on foreign income from certain countries,” Mr White said.

Securitization is the financial practice of pooling various types of contractual debt such as residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, auto loans or credit card debt obligations (or other non-debt assets which generate receivables) and selling their related cash flows to third party investors as securities, which may be described as bonds, pass-through securities, or collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Investors are repaid from the principal and interest cash flows collected from the underlying debt and redistributed through the capital structure of the new financing. Securities backed by mortgage receivables are called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), while those backed by other types of receivables are asset-backed securities (ABS).

Critics have suggested that the complexity inherent in securitization can limit investors’ ability to monitor risk, and that competitive securitization markets with multiple securitizers may be particularly prone to sharp declines in underwriting standards. Private, competitive mortgage securitization played an important role in the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis.[1]

In addition, off-balance sheet treatment for securitizations coupled with guarantees from the issuer can hide the extent of leverage of the securitizing firm, thereby facilitating risky capital structures and leading to an under-pricing of credit risk. Off-balance sheet securitizations also played a large role in the high leverage level of U.S. financial institutions before the 2008 financial crisis, and the need for bailouts.[2]

The granularity of pools of securitized assets can mitigate the credit risk of individual borrowers. Unlike general corporate debt, the credit quality of securitized debt is non-stationary due to changes in volatility that are time- and structure-dependent. If the transaction is properly structured and the pool performs as expected, the credit risk of all tranches of structured debt improves; if improperly structured, the affected tranches may experience dramatic credit deterioration and loss.[3]

Securitization has evolved from its beginnings in the late 18th century to an estimated outstanding of $10.24 trillion in the United States and $2.25 trillion in Europe as of the 2nd quarter of 2008. In 2007, ABS issuance amounted to $3.455 trillion in the US and $652 billion in Europe.[4] WBS (Whole Business Securitization) arrangements first appeared in the United Kingdom in the 1990s, and became common in various Commonwealth legal systems where senior creditors of an insolvent business effectively gain the right to control the company.[5] There are main players in securitization, they include investors, securiters and corporates.

The DoddFrank Act (fully known as the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) is a United States federal law that places regulation of the financial industry in the hands of the government.Feb 6, 2017




GOAL 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere
GOAL 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
GOAL 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
GOAL 4 Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
GOAL 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
GOAL 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
GOAL 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
GOAL 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
GOAL 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
GOAL 10 Reduce inequality within and among countries
GOAL 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
GOAL 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
GOAL 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
GOAL 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
GOAL 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
GOAL 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
GOAL 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Published on 17 Aug 2015

JBS CEO Art Thompson’s weekly news video update for Aug. 17 – 23, 2015.
In this week’s Analysis Behind the News video, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses how many Americans have chased Agenda 21 planning out of their communities, but now the UN is replacing the Agenda 21 terminology with “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”; how the “2030 Agenda” will lead to a UN-dominated world government; how the “2030 Agenda” is grounded on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which amounts to saying that rights are granted by the UN, not by God as our Declaration of Independence asserts; how the “2030 Agenda” promotes world-wide migration without regard to national boundaries; and how you can obtain a copy of the UN document, “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” at…

How Electoral Preferences Work in Australia

Antony Green’s Election Guide

Australia has a long history of electoral experimentation. Australia led the world in abandoning electoral franchises based on property ownership and extending the right to vote to all adult males. Australia also led the world in granting the vote to women and in the introduction of the secret ballot, a reform that when introduced in the United States was often referred to as the ‘Australian ballot’.

One innovation that has remained more or less unique to Australia has been preferential voting. In almost all other countries, you get the right to cast a single vote for your party or candidate of choice. This single vote may be for a candidate in a single member electorate, such as in the United Kingdom, Canada or the United States, or it may be for parties elected by proportional representation as in European countries. (Some countries, like Germany, New Zealand and Scotland, use variants on proportional representation where you get two votes.) All these systems work on the basis that if your choice of candidate or party does not get elected, it does not get a second chance to be counted.

Not so in Australia. The essence of preferential voting is that voters number candidates on the ballot paper in a rank order of choice. You put the number 1 next to your first choice candidate, 2 next to your second choice, and so on. If your first choice candidate is not elected and no candidate receives half of the vote, your vote may be re-examined for its next preference. The point of the system is to elect the most preferred candidate, to choose the candidate that can build an absolute majority of support in the electorate rather than the simple majority required for first past the post voting.

Other countries have adopted the idea of requiring absolute majorities for elections, but not using Australia’s preferential system. Many countries, including France and Indonesia, use run-off election to elect the President. If no candidate wins 50% of the vote in the first round, a run-off election is held later between the two leading candidates. In recent years, a form or preferential voting called contingent voting has been used in Britain to elect Mayors. Voters are given two votes, a first preference for the preferred candidate, and a second preference to be counted if no candidate receives a majority of the vote. The only contingent votes counted are those directed to the two candidate with the highest first vote counts.

So preferential voting is like a run-off election, except the run-off is held with the same ballot paper and on the same day. Under special circumstances, it is even possible for candidates who finish lower than first or second to come through and win after the distribution of preferences.

How Preferences are Counted

The following example is from the 2001 Commonwealth election and demonstrates the counting process for preferential voting. The key point to make is that at each stage of the count, the candidate with the lowest count is excluded and their ballot papers examined for next preferences. The preferences counted are those filled in by voters on the ballot papers. Parties and candidates try to influence preferences by distributing how to vote cards outside polling places, but preferences are determined by individual voters and how they fill in their ballot papers.

Chisholm (VIC) 2001 – Second Count
First Count Murray Excluded Second Count
Candidate Votes % Votes % Votes %
Clowes (LIB) 34836 43.6 +178 19.9 35014 43.8
Bennett (DEM) 5379 6.7 +118 13.2 5497 6.9
Burke (ALP) 33929 42.4 +264 29.5 34193 42.8
Murray (No GST) 895 1.1 …. …. …. ….
Tankey (GRN) 4898 6.1 +335 37.4 5233 6.5
Total Vote 79937 895 79937

Count 1

On the count of No. 1 or primary votes, the Liberal candidate Clowes was 907 votes ahead of the Labor candidate Burke. Under first past the post voting, Clowes would have been declared elected. In Australia, as Clowes did not have an absolute majority (i.e. 50% of the vote), the candidate with the fewest votes was excluded. In the above case, all 895 votes for Murray were examined for their second preferences.

Count 2

As shown in the middle columns, of Murray’s 895 votes, 178 had second preference for Clowes, (19.9% of Murray’s votes), 118 for Bennett (13.2%), 264 for Burke (29.5%) and 335 for Tankey (37.4%). Clowes’s lead over Burke has now fallen to only 821 votes, and as Clowes still does not have more than 50% of the vote, the candidate with the lowest current vote (Tankey) is excluded. Note that candidates are always excluded on the current count, not the primary vote count. If Murray’s preferences had put Tankey ahead of Bennett, then Bennett would have been excluded, not Tankey.

Note that Tankey’s total vote includes 335 Murray votes with second preference for Tankey. When these votes are examined for their next preference, it will be the third preferences examined. In the case of Tankey’s 4898 primary votes, some votes will be distributed according to their second preferences, but any votes with a second preference for Murray will be examined for their third preferences as Murray has already been excluded from the count.

Chisholm (VIC) 2001 – Third Count
Second Count Tankey Excluded Third Count
Candidate Votes % Votes % Votes %
Clowes (LIB) 35014 43.8 +569 10.9 35583 44.5
Bennett (DEM) 5497 6.9 +3112 59.5 8609 10.8
Burke (ALP) 34193 42.8 +1552 29.7 35745 44.7
Tankey (GRN) 5233 6.5 …. …. …. ….
Total Vote 79937 5233 79937

Count 3

Tankey’s preferences flow overwhelmingly to the Democrat candidate Bennett, with another strong flow to Labor. At this point, the lead of Clowes has been overturned, Burke now ahead by 162 votes. Still no candidate has reached 50% of the vote, so Bennett is now excluded.

Chisholm (VIC) 2001 – Fourth Count
Third Count Bennett Excluded Fourth Count
Candidate Votes % Votes % Votes %
Clowes (LIB) 35583 44.5 +2175 25.3 37758 47.2
Bennett (DEM) 8609 10.8 …. …. …. ….
Burke (ALP) 35745 44.7 +6434 74.7 42179 52.8
Total Vote 79937 8609 79937

Count 4

Almost three quarters of Bennett’s preferences flow to Burke. This means that after trailing by 907 on the primary count, Burke has won by 4,421 votes after preferences. Of the 11,172 primary votes cast for the three minor party candidates, 8,250 (73.8%) flowed to Burke as preferences and only 2,922 to Clowes. The totals for the final two candidates after the distribution of preferences is referred to as the two-candidate preferred count. As this final count is between candidates representing Labor and the Coalition, this is also the two-party preferred count.

It is possible for candidate who finished other than 1st or 2nd to win seats; as was shown by the defeat of Pauline Hanson at the 1998 Federal election.

Blair (QLD) 1998 – Counts Two to Six
First Count 5 Candidates Excluded Sixth Count
Candidate Votes % Votes % Votes %
White (NAT) 6989 10.3 +1141 24.6 8130 11.9
Clarke (ALP) 17239 25.3 +1671 36.1 18910 27.7
Hanson (ONP) 24516 36.0 +837 18.1 25353 37.2
Thompson (LIB) 14787 21.7 +984 21.2 15771 23.1
5 other candidates 4633 6.8 …. …. …. ….
Total Vote 68164 4633 68164

Hanson finished first with the highest primary count, Labor finishing second with the Liberal candidate Cameron Thompson third and the National Party fourth. After the successive exclusion of five minor party candidates (abbreviated to one set of totals in the above table), Hanson still led with Liberal candidate Thompson third..

Blair (QLD) 1998 – Seventh Count
Sixth Count White Excluded Seventh Count
Candidate Votes % Votes % Votes %
White (NAT) 8130 11.9 …. …. …. ….
Clarke (ALP) 18910 27.7 +1064 13.1 19974 29.3
Hanson (ONP) 25353 37.2 +1172 14.4 26525 38.9
Thompson (LIB) 15771 23.1 +5894 72.5 21665 31.8
Total Vote 68164 8130 68164

With the distribution of preferences from the National Party candidate, Thompson moved to second place ahead of the Labor candidate. As the Labor candidate Clarke now had the lowest total, she was the final candidate excluded.

Blair (QLD) 1998 – Eigth Count
Seventh Count Clarke Excluded Eigth Count
Candidate Votes % Votes % Votes %
Clarke (ALP) 19974 29.3 …. …. …. ….
Hanson (ONP) 26525 38.9 +5241 26.2 31766 46.6
Thompson (LIB) 21665 31.8 +14733 73.8 36398 53.4
Total Vote 68164 19974 68164

The strong flow of Labor preferences to Thompson delivered the electorate to Thompson, winning after finishing third, Hanson defeated after clearly leading on the first count.

Under run-off elections, as used for the French and Indonesian Presidency, and also with contingent vote elections such as London Mayor, the final count is always conducted between the two leading candidates. Under preferential voting, candidates can finish third, and theoretically lower, and still come through to win on preferences. However, it is quite rare for candidates to win from 3rd place, with only half a dozen instances since 1949.preferences

Agenda 20/30 Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, dealing with greenhouse-gas-emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance, starting in the year 2020. Wikipedia
Effective4 November 2016
Drafted30 November – 12 December 2015 in Le BourgetFrance
Signed22 April 2016
 Put Australia First  – sticking to the Paris targets is the very opposite of putting Australia First- Peta Credlin Sky News  13 Sept 2018

The Paris Agreements impacts multiple Sectors

Our Paris targets are off 2005 levels

Energy – only 1/3 of our emissions

Price guarantee

Under writing new investment – possible power purchase agreement. More reliable supply into the market.

Retail gouging.

Nuclear power options – would take 20 years. and we still have the nuclear prohibition and


To meet Paris targets got to deal with transport no just 26% reduction but because it is from 2005 it will require  a 40% reduction.

To get a 40% reduction you would have to take EVER passenger car OFF THE ROAD   

To meet what labour want to do we would have to take every car off the road plus every aeroplane out of the sky and you would still not meet the targets.

Craig & Credlin 13 Sept 


Our emmissions are going up

  1. because we are exporting
  2. Asian trade agreements
  3. Population growing exponentially

Agricultural emissions is primarily 80-90% farting and belching cattle. As per the original Garno review 2008 talks about culling 30 million sheep and 7 million beef cattle. latest report says reason it has increased is because of herd sizes.

To achieve  labours 45% reduction we would have to cull 30 million sheep, 1 million dairy and 10 million beef cattle.

France increased 3% ,China business as usual up,USA out

That’s 60%


On 1 April 2016, the United States and China, which together represent almost 40% of global emissions, issued a joint statement confirming that both countries would sign the Paris Climate Agreement. 175 Parties (174 states and the European Union) signed the agreement on the first date it was open for signature.

Limit global warming to ‘well below’ 2°C, or 1.5°C if possible

The agreement aims to limit the increase in global average temperatures to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” – the level beyond which scientists say we will see the worst extremes of global warming.

It also aims to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”.

In order to actually limit warming to that level, the aim is to “achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century” – in other words, net carbon emissions to be zero.

To get there, countries should aim to “reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science”.

Rich nations to provide funding to poorer ones

The agreement requires that “developed” nations – as defined by the UN Framework in 1992 – will continue to help developing countries with the costs of going green, and the costs of coping with the effects of climate change.

The thorny question of how much money rich nations must give only appears in a non-legally binding ‘decision text’ accompanying the Paris Agreement.

Currently, developed countries are obliged to ‘mobilise’ $100bn a year of public and private finance to help developing countries by 2020 – a target set in Copenhagen in 2009.

The Paris decision says they “intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025” – in other words continue the $100bn a year, and then by 2025 set a new goal “from a floor of $100bn”.

Finance was one of the biggest rows of the talks, with developing nations demanding more cash (and arguing that developed nations haven’t even met their $100bn pledge). Although many poorer countries wanted increased finance to be a legally binding requirement, the US made it clear it would never ratify such a deal.

Developed nations meanwhile argued for an end to the crude 1992 definition – which sees six of the 10 wealthiest counties in the world classed as “developing” and under no obligation to contribute financially.

They were pushing for a wording suggesting other countries “in a position to do so” should also contribute (especially as some, such as China, already are in practice). But developing nations resisted this wording and in the final agreement there is a much weaker commitment that non-developed nations are “encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily”.

Holding countries to account

There is to be a global “stock-take” in 2023, and every five years thereafter, to assess progress toward the aims of the agreement and to encourage countries to make deeper pledges (see point 3).

The text sets out plans for a new transparency framework to see whether countries are actually carrying out their pledges, in order to hold them account and inform the stocktake.

Countries will have to disclose an inventory of their emissions and information to track their progress in hitting their national target, while developed countries should also give information on the finance they are providing or mobilising.

This will be subject to a “technical expert review” to check their progress and highlight areas where improvement is needed.

However, the whole transparency framework will have “built-in flexibility” offering leeway to developing countries “that need it in the light of their capacities”.

USA getting out of Paris agreement

“We’re getting out.” It was with these words that Donald Trump signified the United States’ break from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change​.

In a statement from the Rose Garden in Washington DC, Trump announced that the United States would be withdrawing its support from the Accord, but would begin negotiations to re-enter the Paris Agreement or an “entirely new transaction” that would be more “fair” to the U.S economy.

“As someone who cares deeply about the environment, I cannot in good conscience support [the deal],” Trump said, noting that the Paris Agreement was blocking the development of clean coal in America.


Ensuring finance

At the Paris Conference in 2015 where the Agreement was negotiated, the developed countries reaffirmed the commitment to mobilize $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020, and agreed to continue mobilizing finance at the level of $100 billion a year until 2025.[48]The commitment refers to the pre-existing plan to provide US$100 billion a year in aid to developing countries for actions on climate change adaptation and mitigation.[49]

Though both mitigation and adaptation require increased climate financing, adaptation has typically received lower levels of support and has mobilised less action from the private sector.[46] A 2014 report by the OECD found that just 16 percent of global finance was directed toward climate adaptation in 2014.[50] The Paris Agreement called for a balance of climate finance between adaptation and mitigation, and specifically underscoring the need to increase adaptation support for parties most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States. The agreement also reminds parties of the importance of public grants, because adaptation measures receive less investment from the public sector.[46] John Kerry, as Secretary of State, announced that the U.S. would double its grant-based adaptation finance by 2020.[33]

Some specific outcomes of the elevated attention to adaptation financing in Paris include the G7 countries’ announcement to provide US $420 million for Climate Risk Insurance, and the launching of a Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems (CREWS) Initiative.[51] In early March 2016, the Obama administration gave a $500 million grant to the “Green Climate Fund” as “the first chunk of a $3billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks.”[52][53][54] So far, the Green Climate Fund has now received over $10 billion in pledges. Notably, the pledges come from developed nations like France, the US, and Japan, but also from developing countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, and Vietnam.[33]

Australia and the paris agreement

Paris Agreement

Australia is committed to taking strong domestic and international action on climate change. The Government is implementing national policies to reduce emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change in the context of coordinated global action.

An historic global climate agreement was agreed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris (30 November to 12 December 2015).

The Paris Agreement sets in place a durable and dynamic framework for all countries to take climate action from 2020, building on existing international efforts in the period up to 2020. Key outcomes include:

  • A global goal to hold average temperature increase to well below 2°C and pursue efforts to keep warming below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
  • All countries to set mitigation targets from 2020 and review targets every 5 years to build ambition over time, informed by a global stocktake.
  • Robust transparency and accountability rules to provide confidence in countries’ actions and track progress towards targets.
  • Promoting action to adapt and build resilience to climate impacts.
  • Financial, technological and capacity building support to help developing countries implement the Agreement.

Ahead of the Paris Conference, countries were invited to submit indicative post-2020 targets, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). Targets have been set by almost all Parties to the UNFCCC, including all G20 countries. These targets represent over 96 per cent of global emissions, over 99 per cent of global GDP and 99.8 per cent of Australia’s two-way trade. These targets cover significantly more than the Cancun Agreements (2010), under which around 100 countries made pledges to reduce or limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Australia has set an ambitious target to reduce emissions by 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, which builds on our 2020 target of reducing emissions by five per cent below 2000 levels. Australia’s targets will be achieved through a credible policy suite that is already reducing emissions, encouraging technological innovation and expanding our clean energy sector.

Australia is on track to meet its 2020 target.

Australia’s support for developing countries

Developing countries measurement of land sector emissions

Australia is a recognised world leader in land and forest monitoring to inform the estimation of emissions. It is using this expertise to help developing countries through a variety of aid programmes managed by the Department of the Environment and Energy.

A major focus of Australia’s assistance to developing countries in the land sector is to help set up Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) systems.

The development of MRV systems to calculate emissions from the land sector has become increasingly important. Countries need to use MRV systems to meet international requirements to measure emissions reductions in a transparent and consistent way.

Effective MRV systems also bring other benefits to developing countries, such as improving land management to enhance food security and improve rural people’s livelihoods.

Official Development Assistance-funded programmes

The Department manages these Official Development Assistance (ODA)-funded programmes:

Global Forest Observations Initiative

The Global Forest Observations Initiative (GFOI) is an international partnership that helps developing countries build robust MRV systems to calculate changes to forests and the contribution of their destruction and degradation to greenhouse gas emissions. Accurate measurements are the bedrock of effective forest policies supporting climate action.

The GFOI supports the integration of satellite data and ground-based measurements to assist countries to generate a full account of forest resources and emissions from land use changes.

Australia is a lead partner of the GFOI with Norway, the United States, the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.

Australia leads the development of the GFOI Methods and Guidance Documentation (MGD). These resources provide practical advice to help developing country partners establish forest monitoring systems that comply with international requirements.

System for Land-Based Emissions Estimation in Kenya

The System for Land-based Emissions Estimation in Kenya (SLEEK) means that the Government of Kenya will be able to measure and report its land sector emissions and evaluate different land-use scenarios for sustainable development. This will help inform policy decisions to improve the management of forests, agriculture and water.

The Department is working with the Government of Kenya to implement this $12 million programme. It will develop an MRV system and a decision support system. SLEEK data will be made freely available to all government agencies, non-government organisations and land holders.

South Africa Land Sector Measurement, Reporting and Verification Capacity Building Project

This $0.8 million project is helping the South African Government develop a strategic plan to measure the amount of carbon stored in the country’s vegetation and soil.

South African experts have sought advice from the practical experiences of other developing countries which have achieved progress in land sector MRV improvement, including Indonesia and Kenya.

South Africa’s enhanced ability to monitor and measure emissions from land use is intended to improve the country’s ability to meet international reporting requirements and gain accreditation for climate finance.

Support to Indonesia’s Measurement, Reporting and Verification System

Since 2009, Australia has supported Indonesia to develop a forest monitoring system which will allow Indonesia to develop policies to achieve their domestic and international forest commitments. From 2017-19, Australia is supporting Indonesia to further build and maintain capacity for MRV of the land sector, operationalise the MRV system within the Indonesian Government and share experiences with other developing countries.

Non-land sector MRV capacity building

Measurement, Reporting and Verification Capacity Building Programme

This $3 million initiative supports Thailand to improve its national greenhouse gas inventory systems national greenhouse gas inventory systems for whole of economy emissions. Recently, it became a requirement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for developing countries to submit reports at least every two years that provide a comprehensive breakdown of their national greenhouse gas emissions. These national greenhouse gas inventories should be transparent, accurate, complete, consistent and comparable (TACCC).

Australia has been preparing and submitting national inventories for many years and has valuable experience and expertise to share. This initiative focuses on helping Thailand to develop a data management system similar to Australia’s to enable the Thai Government to independently prepare national inventories in line with the TACCC principles.

Further information

Originally Electricity was a state based issue

SA’s 50 % renewable – highest prices in the nation for electricity.

Daniel Andrew in Victoria has pledged a Billion $ to support renewable. This will make it more vulnerable, more intermittent, more unreliable. If he goes ahead with that policy he will lock the state in with higher prices for decades to come.

Coal fire prefers running 24/7 like a truck going down the highway

We have 700 odd years of coal in the ground

What is Agenda 21 – also know as Sustainable Development , One World Order , Globilasation, Earth Summit

What is Agenda 21

Agenda 21 is a non-binding action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.[1] It is a product of the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels.

The “21” in Agenda 21 refers to the 21st Century. Although it is also the area code for Greater Rio de Janeiro, plus Teresópolis and Mangaratiba in the countryside. It has been affirmed and had a few modifications at subsequent UN conferences. Its aim is achieving global sustainable development. One major objective of the agenda 21 is that every local government should draw its own local agenda 21.

The full text of Agenda 21 was made public at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program.


or as Obama said

or as Larry Bell in writes in his Forbes article

Agenda 21: The U.N.’s Earth Summit Has Its Head In The Clouds

Larry Bell

Earth Summit chairman Maurice Strong left no doubt about where to place blame for global problems, stating in the conference report: “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class…involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, ownership of motor vehicles, golf courses, small electric appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable…A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”

And so they have. “Comprehensive planning”, “growth management” and “smart growth” (which is Agenda 21 with a new name). All mean pretty much the same thing… centralized control of virtually every aspect of urban life: energy and water use, housing stock and allocation, population levels, public health and dietary regimens, resources and recycling, “social justice” and education.

Richard Rothschild, a candidate for Carroll County commissioner in Maryland, described reasons to stave off smart growth overreach initiatives there: “Smart growth is not science; it is political dogma combined with an insidious dose of social engineering… It urbanizes rural towns with high-density development, and gerrymanders population centers through the use of housing initiatives that enable people with weak patterns of personal financial responsibility to acquire homes in higher-income areas…shifting the voting patterns of rural communities from Right to Left.”

Every county in America now has sustainable development directives guided by federal agencies, NGOs, and/or the ICLEI. ICLEI-USA claims that its official members consistently rank among the greenest cities and “…have led the effort in recent years to envision, accelerate and achieve strong climate protection goals, creating cleaner, healthier, more economically viable communities.” More than 130 of those members are California counties and cities. They include all major metro areas — Los Angeles, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, San Diego, and San Francisco — as well as smaller communities from Alameda to Yountville. So much for influences on economic viability!

And as for goals of “sustainability”, what, according to the ICLEI definition, does this term actually mean? Former Earth Summit chair, now president of the UN’s University for Peace council Maurice Strong provided an answer in the forward he wrote for the Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide published by ICLEI, the International Development Research Center (IDRC) and U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1996. “The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore, is a program of action for local and global economic reform- a program that has yet to be defined.”

In other words, it means whatever the United Nations ultimately decides is best for all of us.

Agenda 21 for Australia

Australia was one of these countries under Labor’s Paul Keating PM & Gareth Evans Foreign Affairs. Australia is a signatory to Agenda 21 and 88 of its municipalities subscribe to ICLEI, an organization that promotes Agenda 21 globally. Australia’s membership is second only to that of the United States.[11]

Economic Aspects 

Natural Resource Aspects 

Institutional Aspects

Social Aspects



Agenda 21: Bankrupting America into Utopia–One City at a Time

Agenda 21 is a 1992 United Nations’ policy document which calls for using Smart Growth and Sustainability to remake the world into a new global order–devoid of private property and free enterprise. In this address, Alexandra talks about what Agenda 21 is, how it is being implemented throughout the U.S., and what you can do about it. In 1986, Alexandra Swann graduated at fifteen years of age with a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts from Brigham Young University and a GPA of 3.85. The following year, when she was sixteen, she received a Master’s Degree in History from California State University. After graduation, she taught history and English as a second language for four years at El Paso Community College before opening her own business.. In 1989, her book, “No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master’s Degree at Age Sixteen”, was published. She currently writes “Paying for Protection”,, a regular blog about the impact of excessive government regulations, including regulations designed to prevent climate change, on American society and freedom. She is author of “The Planner”, a novel about the impact of Agenda 21 in America, and co-author of “The Chosen” about the NDAA. For more information visit her website at For more about Agenda 21 in America visit her blog:

It’s not about the environment at all. I have an academic publication of a Belgian “sustainability” professor on Local Agenda 21, complaining that they should stop giving environmentalist grants to real environmentalists and they should only give money and support to groups that push the UN political agenda for sustainable development. This stuff is being pushed by outsiders promising free money to your local city council to sabotage traffic and do all this shit nobody wants. We even have Low Emission Zones in Belgium thanks to this crap, where you can’t drive most cars anymore, because they’re “too polluting”. So my car can no longer drive on roads that I’m forced to pay for. Nobody got a chance to vote for or against this. All happens behind closed doors.


Are You Ready For Mandatory White Privilege Training? | Claire Lehmann

Helping me understand why good people can behave so badly.  Their indoctrination throughout  academia is so thorough.

  • Mico aggression
  • Critical race theory
  • Whiteness Studies
  • Colourblindness
  • Quality of outcomes versus quality of opportunities


Claire Lehmann is the publisher of Quillette. Quillette was created with the intention of giving non-journalists — in particular scientists and scholars — a platform to share ideas without unnecessary editorial interference. Claire Lehmann founded Quillette in October 2015, with the goal of publishing intellectually rigorous material that makes arguments or presents data not in keeping with the contemporary intellectual consensus. She has contributed to a variety of publications, including The Guardian, Scientific American, Commentary, Rebel Australia, part of the Canadian The Rebel Media network, and the American Jewish online magazine Tablet. In 2015 Lehmann drew attention for responding to widespread reports in Australian media of public health data showing that domestic violence was the leading cause of death among young women. Lehmann, a forensic psychologist by training, analyzed that same data and showed that the data had been mishandled and that the findings were misleading. Lehmann made clear that she supports the important work being done to end domestic violence, but, “what I do not support, however, are dodgy statistics and false claims which belittle this good cause”. Bari Weiss regards Lehmann as one of the leaders of the Intellectual Dark Web, a group of intellectuals who are “determined to resist parroting what’s politically convenient.” Elizabeth Nolan Brown of Reason describes Lehmann as “less inflammatory and condescending than others” commonly described as part of the “intellectual dark web.”

Agenda21/2030 : Eliminating your right to private ownership Brigalow Corp

Anytime you hear the Government talk about “Sustainable Development ” know it is a code name for Agenda 21/2030









Sue Maynes takes to social media

Sue Maynes has taken to Facebook to explain to ratepayers that she was no longer a councillor as seen in the story here.  

These are the words of Ms Maynes:

“I had a visit with the mayor Bill West. Paul Devery sat in on the discussion.

“They presented me with paperwork from the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia stating that Sam and I had been made bankrupt [names withheld for legal reasons].

“I had not seen or was aware of this until that moment, although Bill had quizzed me on Friday whether there was something I needed to tell him.

“The result of this bankruptcy is that, as detailed in the letter Paul Devery gave me, I can no longer hold an office with Cowra Shire Council as a councillor for you all.

“I am out. I can’t even attend the committees I had been placed on, which I was looking forward to.

“There will be a by-election, so I apologize for the necessity for you all to go back to the polls. I certainly did not plan it.

“As to the bankrutpcy, it has not been done by law.

“For starters, it is signed by a registrar, yet the High Court of Australia has ruled in 4 cases that a registrar does not have and cannot exercise judicial power.

“There is more, but I will make that information available soon.

“Sam and I are not embarrassed by this situation as it is full of irregularities (I am not allowed to use the word lies in legal comments it seems) and we are now preparing to take the matter to the highest common law court.

“Unfortunately that court no longer exists in Australia, so we will be part of a class action prepared for International Courts of Justice in The Hague.

“But we do need you all to be part of this. By asking me questions, reading the data I will get ready, sharing the story with your friends, etc.


“Because the claim is for a little bit of money and our assets are much greater than the claim.

“What happens in a bankruptcy is that the claim is inflated massively so the claimants and their lawyers and the system, get the lot.

“I have proof from many people that they will even take the undies in your drawers.

“One lady told me she had the claimant’s lawyers lodge a letter into the court that was valued at $1 million dollars, the court registrar accepted that cost and simply added it to the debt they were claiming off her.

“And we are aware that a neighbour is already prepared to buy part of our assets at what I am sure will not be the market price.

“Are we worried? No. Concerned for the unknown yes.

“Are we pissed off? Big time!

“That’s where you all come in.

“See this as a reality show. Be part of it. Help us keep these people to a degree of honesty because they will have to do this whole thing – if they do keep going – in front of you all.

“What most of you don’t know is that bankruptcy is now the tool of government to shut people up when they ask the hard questions or try to defend their personal rights.

“It is a money-making tool for the lawyers and the court system. And it gets your wealth out of your hands and into the government’s coffers.

“We don’t see anything just about that and we will fight it.

“Once you know the details, you will understand that if we win – you all win. if we don’t – then get ready.

Are you all aware that it appears Melton Council in Victoria has been sold to the Saudi Arabians?

You may say – that’s impossible. However it is not.

As all councils are already run by privatised bodies – corporations – it is just a business sale.

However it appears the Victorian Government must have realized that this is not quite legitimate – yet. Because this is their current activities in this area:


The Andrews Government in Victoria has drafted the Local Government Act 2018 that has many draconian features about it. Reading the Bill indicates the following events will happen if the Bill passes through the parliament unchallenged:

* ALL local councils will become legitimised as “corporations” as representing “the third tier of government”. Our Constitution does NOT allow for this to happen; nor is it appropriate for a corporation be both a commercial profit-making enterprise and an arm of government.

* ALL Councils will be elevated to “Authority” status; meaning, they will become laws unto themselves.

* ALL councils will be able to make their own “Local Laws” (which are different to by-laws) and they will able to enforce them – even utilising the police when necessary.

* Councils will be required to bring community housing up to the standards specified in the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target 2007. This means they will send “approved officers” to people’s homes and businesses to produce a list of work required by the landowner to meet these targets for energy efficiency.

* If the landowner fails to complete the work within the given timespan, the council will then arrange for the work to be done. This could cost $$0,000’s!

Once completed, the council gives the landowner time to pay. If he/she cannot do that, then the land is “”transferred” to the council.

The council will then determine “market value” of the property and after any mortgage costs, encumbrances, fees and fines are deducted, many people will not see much cash remaining from the value of their former home. They could also be looking for other accommodation too.


My comments:

Q: Can they do this?
A: Yes. But they can NOT give these private corporation ANY judicial authority over you and I UNLESS we agree to it.

Q: How do we agree to it?
A: By voting for them – which gives tacit approval to them being IN a place of authority – THEN by contracting for various things with that council.

In law folks – it is the contract that holds the law.


Marxist Victoria government set to seize private property if it fails energy efficiency test

from Alan Manson

A bill to corporatise local government

The Andrews Government has drafted the Local Government Act 2018 that has many draconian features about it.  Reading the Bill indicates the following events will happen if the Bill passes through the parliament unchallenged:

  1. ALL local councils will become legitimised as “corporations” as representing “the third tier of government”.  Our Constitution does NOT allow for this to happen; nor is it appropriate for a corporation be both a commercial profit-making enterprise and an arm of government.
  2. ALL Councils will be elevated to “Authority” status; meaning, they will become laws unto themselves.
  3. ALL councils will be able to make their own “Local Laws” (which are different to by-laws) and they will able to enforce them – even utilising the police when necessary.
  4. Councils will be required to bring community housing up to the standards specified in the Victorian Energy Efficiency Target 2007.  This means they will send “approved officers” to people’s homes and businesses to produce a list of work required by the landowner to meet these targets for energy efficiency.
  5. If the landowner fails to complete the work within the given timespan, the council will then arrange for the work to be done.  This could cost $$0,000’s!
  6. Once completed, the council gives the landowner time to pay.  If he/she cannot do that, then the land is “”transferred” to the council.
  7. The council will then determine “market value” of the property and after any mortgage costs, encumbrances, fees and fines are deducted, many people will not see much cash remaining from the value of their former home.  They could also be looking for other accommodation too.


Communist Victoria Premier Dan Andrews moves to confiscate private property if it doesn’t meet energy efficiency standards

With already corrupt councils potentially being offered so much POWER to exercise over their ratepayers, it is believed that the laws they enact will be so totalitarian that no person will have any means to object to their decisions.

Fortunately, this Draft Bill is available for public comment.

I have put together a Submission Template that exposes each council’s illegitimacy (together with other issues) and I’m seeking assistance from those who own/lease or invest in property to contact their MP’s and tell them to NOT support this Bill.

Larry Hannigan has kindly hosted for me a webpage about this matter; so I encourage you to visit the page and read it carefully, as it has extracts taken out of the proposed legislation to demonstrate how draconian this matter is.

More importantly, the webpage has a link where you can download a Submission template that I have created to assist people to make a submission

Contact the author:   Alan Manson


Freedom of Speech – Antifa the Fascists, Vict Police the Conspirators – FREE SPEECH COALITION

“To pay these bills would incentivise violence” Dave Pellowe


My grandfather is a 96 yr old German. When seeing Antifa videos, he shakes his head and says; “We didnt think it could happen in Germany either. These people (Antifa) act and sound like the NAZI party’s Sturmabteilung. Stop them now or you’ll regret it.”

— Landon Simms (@simms_landon) August 13, 2018


I’m refusing to pay the Victoria Police bill for the riot at Lauren Southern & Stefan Molyneux


I’ve been interviewed on Outsiders (Sky News)

Refusing to pay police for protection – Dave Pellowe on 3AW Mornings with Neil Mitchell



Alan Jones discusses the Thugs’ Veto and the injustice of Victoria Police sending an invoice to targets of Antifa’s domestic terrorism.



David Pellow’s  press release : that I would be vigorously resisting the bill from Victoria Police for them keeping the peace outside the event I ran in Melbourne, I’ve been interviewed on Outsiders (Sky News), and by Neil Mitchell(3AW), Alan Jones (2GB) and Miranda Devine (Daily Telegraph podcast).

The other important announcement is your opportunity to nominate your favourite Australian Alt Media voice. No, this isn’t a gratuitous request for affirmation – as one of the organisers I’m ineligible to be nominated!

The Australian Free Speech Coalition’s Independent Media Award will be presented by me and another director of the AFSC at this year’s LibertyFest gala dinner. Please nominate your second favourite Alt Media voice now and share the opportunity on your social media.



Axiomatic Events Refuses to Pay Invoice for Police at Lauren Southern & Stefan Molyneux Tour Riots


Axiomatic Events director, Dave Pellowe, has sent Victoria Police a letter explaining why he is refusing to pay the invoice for $67,842.50 they sent Axiomatic for police services outside the Lauren Southern & Stefan Molyneux Live event in Melbourne on 20 July.

The letter from Axiomatic’s solicitor highlights concerns that, despite the skill and bravery of police on the ground in dealing with the violent behaviour of extremist individuals and organisations like Antifa, the government appears to blame the victim. Such a penalty gives the appearance of enabling the Thugs’ Veto, adding to the injuries extremists can inflict by inciting such protests.

Mr Pellowe is concerned that simply paying the crippling bill would create a precedent by which other event organisers around Australia will change or even cancel their plans to hold political events which might attract the unwanted attention of extremists, and subsequently an enormous bill from law enforcement.

“The Andrews government has the gall to call this ‘user pays’ policing, but the reality is that it’s victim-blaming. Our event was a normal sized crowd in a venue that routinely hosts such crowds. We broke no laws and went above and beyond to cooperate with police, and greatly appreciate the work they do. But if Police Minister Lisa Neville is looking for creative ways to fundraise for Victoria Police she can keep looking. The fair and just way to go about it would be to issue a $1,000 fine to every thug who blocked the highway, who abused & intimidated the mums, dads and kids who came along, who damaged private property and turned Melbourne into a Berkeley war zone. Sending us the bill for their lawlessness appears to be simply enabling the Thugs’ Veto.”

Axiomatic’s letter to Victoria Police further explains that their legal advice has been that if the Andrews government wanted to pursue the matter in Courts they would likely lose because the invoice radically undermines the practical exercise of common law rights and freedoms. The letter states, “The imposition of fees for the performance of essential police purposes is unlawful,” and quotes the Victoria Police Act (2013).

“The role of Victoria Police is to serve the Victorian Community and uphold the law so as to promote a safe, secure and orderly society.”

Mr Pellowe stated that not only is there at least one YouTube video of an extremist boasting of his contributions to the behaviour that saw Victoria Police invoice Axiomatic for keeping the peace and recruiting others to do the same in Brisbane, but that he’s already been informed of other political groups changing their plans to specifically avoid a “$68,000 police bill”.

“The effect this has on important public debates is devastating. We cannot let this stand. I implore Premier Daniel Andrews and Police Minister Lisa Neville to commit to upholding the peace at future political events without blaming the victims and to reconsider the comfort they’re inadvertently lending to the Thugs’ Veto.”



“I write in respect of issues arising from the proffering to Axiomatic Media Pty Ltd (“Axiomatic”) of a proposed costing for police services.

As you know, police officers were deployed on 20th July 2018 at Broadmeadows and at Somerton in response to the violent conduct of members of the CARF and YARD groups at each of those locations.  I understand that CARF and YARD are sub groups and/or affiliates of Antifa.  I am advised that these groups are well known to the North West Metro Specialist Operations and to Counter-Terrorism Command. The behaviour of members of the CARF and YARD groups at both locations on 20th July 2018 mirrored their behaviour at previous events in that they seek to prevent persons with whom they do not agree from speaking at public venues or from hearing other persons speak at such venues.

On the occasions in question on 20th July 2018, property damage was inflicted by CARF and YARD members.  I am told that CARF and YARD members spat, screamed and uttered abuse at the men and women boarding and alighting from the buses taking them to an event arranged by Axiomatic (“the event”).  I am informed that a number of male members of the CARF and YARD groups displayed their genitals to people boarding and alighting the buses.

The members of Victoria Police who were in attendance displayed great fortitude, skill and forbearance in dealing with the conduct of the members of the CARF and YARD groups at both locations. The representatives of Axiomatic and the members of the public who attended the event are sincerely grateful for the police presence on that day.  Axiomatic however, advise that they consider it very strange that only one arrest was made on the night and it is suspected that this particular outcome was a function of decisions made by persons other than those on site.

Your letter of 17th July 2018 enclosed an agreement that you wished Axiomatic to sign and information relating to the criteria that would enable Axiomatic to apply for a “fee waiver”.

The provision of police services were explicitly declined by Axiomatic upon the basis of the terms offered.  Subsequent police assistance therefore suggests a conclusion that any attempt on the part of the Victorian government through any of its instrumentalities to collect “fees” will not succeed.

If, however, there remains any intention on the part of Victoria Police to seek to recover from Axiomatic any “fees”, then please note that this attempt will be vigorously resisted.

Axiomatic is very concerned about the possibility of any future attempt by Victoria Police to utilise the power to levy fees purported to have been provided to it by the Regulations made under s277 of the Victoria Police Act. It is especially concerned about organised events whose viability may be threatened, as it was in this case, by the concurrence of two factors: first, the conduct of groups who publicly proclaim their intention to violently disrupt such events and to threaten and harm and terrify those attending them; and, second, the decision of the police, in response to such threat, to impose crippling financial penalties upon the promoters of such events merely because they have called upon the police to perform responsibilities which constitute the ordinary discharge of a core police responsibility.

That such events have commercial aspect, in no way deprives citizens attending them of an entitlement to have recourse to police protection if they are threatened. The victims of politically motivated violence and intimidatory conduct at public events are no less entitled to proper police protection merely because they purchased a ticket to participate in an event.

Axiomatic has understood during this experience that the police officers who are obliged to participate in this fee collection process in such circumstances are embarrassed and that they consider their integrity compromised.  It is suggested that many officers share the repugnance held by many members of the public to the idea of the State charging an impost for the carrying out of the most elemental of its obligations – protecting the lives and safety of its citizens.  The police officers with whom Axiomatic dealt were clearly discomfited by being perceived by the public as particeps criminis in the deliberate shutting down of public meetings promoting views that with which other groups disagree.

Axiomatic is of the view that members of Victorian police understand that such groups  follow the same the strategy each time political conservatives gather to listen to speeches by other conservatives.  That strategy is:

  1. To announce an intention to organise violent street opposition to the holding of a particular public event and enlist support for that opposition from the media.
  2. To elicit a fear on the part of those arranging the public event that the safety of participants and attendees may be at risk and cannot be guaranteed without police protection; then
  3. To rely upon the police to impose massive financial penalties upon those arranging such events so that those events that have been scheduled are cancelled and those that are in planning are abandoned.


If Victoria Police is obliged to be complicit in this strategy that is a matter of serious concern. It is subversive of public confidence in the rule of law.

Axiomatic has obtained advice from Counsel as to the remedies available to it or to any other promoter of a public speaking event in future who is threatened with the imposition of such levies when the event attracts the threat of violent closure from groups such as Antifa.  I now summarise that advice.

The use of a delegated regulatory power to impose fees for a purpose that radically undermines the practical exercise of common law rights and freedoms is highly likely, it has been  advised, to lead the Courts on judicial review to adopt a construction of the statutory provision which created the regulation-making power which is consistent with the purposes of the Act which brought Victoria Police in to being. The imposition of fees for the performance of essential police purposes is unlawful. Victoria Police may have been given various functions, but Section 8 of the Victoria Police Act (2013) strictly prescribes its purpose. It provides:

Role of Victoria Police

The role of Victoria Police is to serve the Victorian community and uphold the law so as to promote a safe, secure and orderly society.

Further, the exercise of the power to impose fees such as was threatened in this case may well provide occasion for the removal of any legal action arising therefrom to the High Court under section 39 of the Judiciary Act (1903) (Cwth). The High Court have long recognised an implied freedom of communication in relation to political matters as having its provenance in our Constitution, being one which conditions the exercise of the legislative power of the Commonwealth and States. There are a number of recent and important High Court decisions which contain dicta supportive of the exercise of the powers of the executive being similarly conditioned. The chilling effect upon political speech in Victoria of a situation where the lawless conduct of agitators can result in police imposition of massive financial penalties upon those whose free speech is attacked by them may well provide the ideal vehicle for the determination by the High Court of the question whether the implied freedom extends to executive action.

Whilst the advice given to Axiomatic is that the orthodox judicial review remedies would be successfully invoked without the need to resort to constitutional arguments, Axiomatic is cognisant of the importance of the freedoms that are at risk and of how significant a High Court clarification of this issue might be in protecting them. If necessary, Axiomatic will not hesitate to seek such a remedy or assist in others in doing so.

Axiomatic will be doing all that is possible, with the assistance of concerned members of the legal profession and of journalists and ordinary citizens, to disseminate publicly information about the availability of these remedies so that convenors or promoters of free speech events in Victoria will know how to respond effectively if Victoria Police attempt to impose such fees in such circumstances in the future.

That Victoria Police is now perceived as having accessorial responsibility for the violence perpetrated by agitators has disfigured its reputation. This is signally unfair to those officers, who, as noted above, assisted and protected members of the public on the 20th July 2018. Victoria Police will see their reputation restored as they return to a commitment to the core responsibilities of upholding the law and protecting the orderly exercise of free expression and free assembly.”

Campaign Against Racism and Fascism

The Campaign Against Racism and Fascism (CARF) is an anti-racist group based in London with a history going back to the mid-1970s. It was originally an anti-racist/anti-fascist paper published by Anti-Fascist Committees in Greater London, later it appeared as a section within the anti-Fascist Searchlight magazine, and later still it split with Searchlight to publish as an independent magazine for some years before closing down in 2003. The CARF editorial collective was always closely associated with the IRR (Institute of Race Relations) and the CARF group now operates as a support group for the IRR’s news output.

Ban the Burqa – “A Sack of Anonymity”

Senator Cory Bernardi has fought to ban the burqa since 2010 and was ostracised by all sides of politics at the time for standing up for Australian values.


Senator Pauline Hanson at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: Kym Smith

Pauline Hanson has condemned feminists as “pathetic” for not pushing for the banning of the burka ahead of a motion calling for full face coverings to be removed where “identification is necessary and security is an issue”.

The One Nation Leader said she was putting up the motion to test where Scott Morrison stood on the issue, arguing that full face coverings were a means of suppressing women and not a symbol of religious freedom.

She has amassed a petition of more than 23,300 names in support of a call for an immediate ban on the “wearing of the Islamic headdress, the niqab and burka” because they are “confrontational and intimidating”.

She said the garment was “un-Australian” and should not be ­allowed in schools, hospitals, banks, courts, sporting events and government buildings, arguing it was preventing Islamic women gaining employment and fully participating in society.

“In a society we want to feel ­inclusive, yet these women are covering up fully when they go swimming. My suggestion is: Australia’s not for you,” she said. “They’ve made themselves basically unemployable.

“They come out here and wear that. Do they ever apply for jobs? I couldn’t possibly put one on if I had my takeaway shop around the gas cookers and burners.”

She said it was important for parliament to take a stand against Islamic fundamentalism, and to embrace Muslims and people of other faiths who “wish to adopt and truly respect our country and our culture”.

The motion, which Senator Hanson hopes to move today, comes after Denmark last month introduced a ban on face veils. Bans have also been introduced in France, Belgium, Austria, The Netherlands and Bulgaria.

“It annoys me when you’ve got other members of parliament here screaming about equality and equal rights and equal pay and all the rest of it,” Senator Hanson said. “Yet they are quite happy to see women suppressed to have to wear this. That’s not equality. Where are the feminists? Where are they saying anything about this? They are pathetic. A lot of these women are forced to wear it … so it’s the suppression of women.”

In August last year, Senator Hanson wore a burka into the Senate chamber, declaring it did not belong in parliament and calling on the government to ban the garment — an action that drew an emotional response from then government Senate leader George Brandis.

Then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said last year parliament did not have the power to ban the burka and argued it would need to be removed anyway when women were required to show their faces for identification purposes.

“They obviously have to show their face when the law requires it for identity, when they’re in court or a police officer requires them to check identification or something like that,” he said. “It’s not something the commonwealth parliament has the power to do. People in Australia are entitled to wear basically whatever they like.”