Chapter 3

Home Latest News Press Release The Book Newsletters Links

Previous Chapter | Index | Next Chapter

CHAPTER 3        THE MEDIA, POLITICIANS, PRICES SURVEILLANCE
           AUTHORITY, POLICE, JUDICIAL COMMISSION, I.C.A.C., et al.
                               the list goes on and on.

Absolutely nobody in the public service or any organisation is prepared to be honest and stand up to the power of the banks. I have a filing cabinet full of the correspondence which has gone on between us.

Those who don't "pass the buck" with one of those stereotype letters in reply, actually say they see nothing wrong in the scam.

Politicians say that borrowers have a choice of variable or fixed interest rates. Banks will sometimes allow fixed interest rates on a loan for periods up to a maximum of 5 years after which the variable cuts in. They deliberately set the fixed rate higher than the variable rate to discourage the borrower adopting the fixed rate. All the time they make out that variable interest rates are legitimate. Not by common law, they are not! The contracts are fraud. The fact that corrupt politicians pass corrupt legislation and spineless, traitorous governors sign on the dotted line, doesn't make the swindle right. And for justice to exist, right must be done.

Once I gave an interview to personnel and camera crews from four television networks on the steps of the Supreme Court surrounded by senior police officers. Nothing went to air because they would not transmit what I said.

I have sent long faxes and more than enough material to the major newspapers documenting what has transpired. I have argued with editors and managing editors but nothing has appeared in print.

The only time an article appeared was in the Bulletin in which they said that I sought "to prove that the word 'variable' means certain, whereas his opponents hold that 'variable' means uncertain.". I phoned them and the journalist refused to admit he had got it wrong and the managing editor refused to retract anything. I filed for defamation and, at the first appearance in the Supreme Court, Judge Levine indicated that the case for defamation was strong and asked that I amend the Statement of Claim to be more descriptive. I duly enlarged on the circumstances to include the conduct of the judges which would have gone before a jury because all defamation cases must be heard by a jury. At the next appearance in court, Judge Levine dismissed my case despite my protest that "to dismiss something which is truthful is a denial of justice". I called Judge Levine corrupt. He warned of contempt. I challenged him and he ordered me from the court. I refused to go and sheriffs were called to escort me out of the building. Once they had put me outside the doors in Macquarie Street, I immediately stepped back inside. The police were called and, by then, the journalists and camera crews had assembled. The interview was conducted on the steps, as I have said, and then I was taken in a police car to Day Street Station. No charges were laid and I was driven to the car park where I had left my car earlier. The police were courteous and were sympathetic to my situation when I told them the facts.

On the 26th of November, 1996, I lodged a formal complaint with the New South Wales Judicial Commission that Master Greenwood had lied and perverted the course of justice. The complaint was accompanied by documentation. They would not allow me to appear before them. Their letter, dated 10th February, 1997, said they had decided to dismiss the complaint because there was no evidence to support my accusation.

I sent a fax to the Independent Commission Against Corruption which was acknowledged by a letter giving me a File Number and saying the matter would be looked in to. A few months later a second letter arrived from them saying they had decided not to investigate the matter.

Efforts to secure an appointment with the Commissioner of Police, to see if the police would investigate the bank fraud and the corrupt judges, were rejected by his staff. One sergeant told me on the phone that I had been classified as a "persistent letter-writer" and never to bother them again.

I put in a submission to the Prices Surveillance Authority for the Bank Fees Enquiry in 1995 and attended to give an oral presentation. The reaction from one of the gentlemen on the panel was to say, "It would be interesting to hear a High Court decision on that." But, when the handsome volumes of the report were published, not one word of my submission was anywhere to be found."

Admittedly, nothing of another of my submissions to the House of Representatives Report into Fair Trading was given space, either. But they did include my name in the table of persons who had contributed.

Here are examples of the type of letters I have received:

1. From Hon. Wendy Machin, MP, NSW Minister for Consumer Affairs,17th November, 1994:

"Deregulation of the finance market is seen by Governments to produce greater efficiency in that market. Over-regulation was considered to be the direct cause of the limited availability of credit which was seen prior to the 1980s."

"In a competitive environment, financial institutions are able to offer a wide range of products, which may include fixed and variable rates, and to make those products available at a competitive price. This cannot be achieved by a highly regulatory regime."

"I have recently introduced into Parliament consumer credit legislation which is uniform to all States an Territories, and which is seen to be appropriate to the current deregulatory environment. The basis of the legislation is 'truth-in-lending', which requires that financial institutions give prospective purchasers of credit sufficient information to make informed choices of products. The Bill also provides for strong redress mechanisms if the legislation rules are breached."

"I believe therefore, that reinstatement of outmoded legislation as proposed by the Parramatta North Branch would not be a realistic option for the Government."

2. From Tim Fischer, MP, Federal Member for Farrer, Leader of the National Party of Australia, 2nd December, 1994:

"At the outset, I must say to you that I do not equate variable interest rates with corruption. In a modern economy, the price of money will change according to principles of demand and supply in much the same way as price changes for other goods and services."

"The price of money is, of course, interest rates."

"Any National Government will seek to utilise monetary policy through the mechanism of interest rates to influence economic growth and general economic health within the economy. The banks and other financial institutions make many products available to their customers, including fixed interestrate loans. No one is forced into a variable rate loan it depends on how much you want the credit."

"Fixed rate loans, it is true, are invariably more expensive. However, they do avoid the vagaries of the Government's monetary policy."

"Once again, I do not accept that variable interest rates are either necessarily corrupt or unconstitutional."

3. From A. E. McKenzie, Official Secretary to the Governor of New South Wales, Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair, 1st February, 1994:

"I refer again to your several letters about the Consumer Credit Act."."

"I should like to say that the Governor acts on the advice of his Ministers in relation to matter of this nature and it is regretted that there is nothing further that can be done by Government House."

"You should pursue your representations through Government."

Previous Chapter | Index | Next Chapter Top of Page

Home Latest News Press Release The Book Newsletters Links