13 comments

1. diannaartFebruary 19, 2018 at 5:15 pm

   I noticed some other posters discussing whether any legislation had passed while our attention was on the entire Barny debacle.

   I remembered something about something called “Bank Bail-out”, where banks can access savings of you and I; anyone – except for people with their savings offshore, if a financial need is determined.

   OK. This is what has happened while we were flocking to Canberra’s dog whistle:

   http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2018_02_16_Govt_APRA.html

   Government sneaks through APRA ‘bail-in’ law, but fuels anti-bank revolt

   Under siege from erupting public opposition, the Turnbull government whisked its APRA crisis resolution bill through the Senate and into law on 14 February. Of Australia’s 76 senators, only seven were present when the government rushed the bill to a vote, which passed “on the voices”, with no opposition from the Labor or Greens senators present. The process was hurried to ensure that senators who planned to move an amendment, to stipulate that the bill’s “bail-in” provisions must not apply to bank deposits, did not have the chance, and weren’t even present when it passed.

   The passage of this bill was a live demonstration of the incredible power that banking interests wield over Australian politics. (Before it sold out to those banking interests and embraced neoliberal economics, the “old” Labor Party called them the “Money Power”.) This bill is going to backfire on the Money Power, however. In their desperation for a law that confiscates people’s savings to prop up too-big-to-fail (TBTF) banks, they have further fuelled the revolt in the population against banks and the political elites who serve them.

   Dirty trick

   The biggest scandal about the bill’s rushed passage, is the dirty trick the government pulled at the last moment to ensure it couldn’t be amended to explicitly protect deposits. A CEC delegation was in Parliament House this week meeting politicians from all parties, to expose the true nature of the bill. After having it explained to them, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party proposed an amendment to the bill to clarify that it wouldn’t include deposits, which was the government’s claim after all. In a meeting with the government on the morning of the Senate debate, One Nation notified government and Treasury representatives that they intended to move the amendment. The government offered to have their legal experts look at the wording of the amendment. However, it was while One Nation was waiting to hear back from the government’s legal experts that the bill was rushed through without their knowledge. Not only did One Nation not get to move their amendment, no One Nation senator was yet present in the chamber!

   Delayed and exposed by CEC

   At the time the APRA crisis resolution powers bill was announced by Treasurer Scott Morrison back in August 2017, late on a Friday afternoon to avoid publicity, the CEC knew that the government intended to sneak it through quickly. After a token consultation period in which 250 CEC supporters and contacts made submissions, Morrison introduced the bill on 19 October. It is now clear from how quickly it was rushed through this week that the bill would have been passed in late October or early November, except that the CEC’s mobilisation prompted the Greens to refer it to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. That inquiry was crucial, because it proved the level of intense public opposition to bail-in powers. The committee reported receiving more than 1,000 submissions from the public, but this was an understatement—the chair of the committee told a CEC delegation she had received around 2,000 emails!

   The inquiry also exposed the government’s subservience to the banking interests, including among the so-called regulators. Despite the huge outcry, they refused to hold public hearings on the submissions. While the Senate committee was forced by the sheer scale of the public opposition to question the Treasury and regulators on the clear evidence from the CEC and experts like former APRA researcher Dr Wilson Sy that the bill could confiscate deposits, it accepted the regulators’ highly qualified denials without question and produced a report on 9 February calling the financial system “unquestionably strong” that recommended the bill be passed. That it was pushed through within just three sitting days after the committee produced its report, with staged non-debates in both houses in which just four members of the House of Representatives and three senators spoke, proved that it was only due to the CEC’s mobilisation that this bill had been able to be delayed at all. Although the bill ultimately passed, the delay allowed time to expose the bail-in agenda to thousands more Australians, as well as many politicians, who have been left shocked by the process.

   Bail-in the battle, Glass-Steagall the war

   The fight against bail-in is a battle in a larger political war for a just, productive financial system that protects people’s savings and serves the real economy. The larger goal includes a Glass-Steagall separation of commercial banks with deposits, from all other financial services and all forms of speculation—the US law that protected Americans from banking crises for 66 years in 1933-99. Only Glass-Steagall can both protect deposits and ensure financial stability. It also includes a national bank, so that public credit can be directed into the economic infrastructure and productive industries that make the economy prosperous. With a crisis looming in the Australian property bubble that will bankrupt the banks, and more crises in the international financial system, these policies are urgent. The CEC is preparing legislation for Glass-Steagall for Australia, to go with its already-prepared national bank bill, to escalate the fight.

2. Andrew SmithFebruary 19, 2018 at 6:45 pm

   Well spotted, keep the MSM occupied and the people’s gaze averted.

3. GlenFebruary 19, 2018 at 7:26 pm

   Thanks diannaart, Bail-in legislation = the Govt putting a gun to the head of deposit holders while the Bankers sit back ready to pull the trigger. Thieves ready to destroy a community.

   Wasn’t there something last week that Aust doesn’t need 4 big banks? Kill a bank, or make it BAD!
   Convenient, nominate the weakest in the herd as ‘bad bank’, drop all toxic debt into its ledgers, then welcome taxpayers to their new bank, Toxy-Bank.

   If bail-ins go ahead then expect a haircut of 8-20 per cent of deposits. https://www.acuitymag.com/finance/ready-for-a-big-bank-failure-during-recession

   Interesting that One Nation was looking at amendments but not Labor or Greens.
   But then Labor said nothing against the introduction of Covered Bonds into legislation back in 2011.
   “In sum, covered bonds are a mixed blessing. ADIs (read major banks) would benefit significantly by the new avenue of funding. Investors such as super funds would have a new avenue for investment.
   It is the depositors and more importantly the tax payers who would continue to be left uncovered.”
   http://theconversation.com/banks-want-covered-bonds-but-could-taxpayers-be-left-with-the-risk-3877

4. diannaartFebruary 19, 2018 at 7:30 pm

   Yup, world gets crazier; One Nation actually making sense and where were the Greens & Labor? – helping the legislation go through.

5. GlenFebruary 19, 2018 at 7:42 pm

   Good question diannaart, let me guess, reading Womans Day, Who, Betoota Advocate etc, anything to keep up with the latest goss about Barnaby. Why do they even bother to show up at work, they rarely put the country first. Completely over them.

6. Matters NotFebruary 19, 2018 at 7:43 pm

   The CEC is such a reliable source. NOT!

   One wonders what the real story is.

7. diannaartFebruary 19, 2018 at 8:03 pm

   Matters Not

   I am having difficulties confirming the Bank-Bail legislation apart from fringe networks, such as CEC.

   I know I have heard more about this on the radio – I only ever listen to ABC (TripleR as well) but I sleep with radio tuned to ABC because of tinnitus.

   Anyway, I understand there are ways to confirm legislation which has passed through the senate, anyone out there can help to verify this news?

8. Andrew ChambersFebruary 20, 2018 at 12:24 am

   Soon we won’t be able to talk, publicly about such things, subversives that we all are

   https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fipa.org.au%2Fpublications-ipa%2Fturnbulls-18c-steroids&h=ATP13vOopkRIOgEfRLH3v9rjk_Z3h4pr4o5zfS-UDHT2OOUWMH0KQ1vlO9Zoeti9jyUI_prnAVAoxzMxfcjTUM3kCudm13CUsxuyCaigEUcQES-toxqmLUxHmi92KsYqJlvnmSKQ-MRQ1GZiNaFxUWtqWpImLpqBsP1TaaS7ieVufINi5cJ5g7If59XaRO2aVCUOaLNPNfPBnZ_HIKRbfiK9cIjJrgUr5MhhSXkUm35oxAukCfBQmStAAGlAeIT6-tyHZG2QNp5OzUXPncUB

9. paul walterFebruary 20, 2018 at 2:00 am

   Given the nature of diannaart’s comprehensive comment I will add this:

   http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-19/corporate-tax-rate-tax-reform/9451592?section=analysis

   Note the heading for the second par, ” We don’t know what the correct rate is”

   Apart from observing an unconscious subtle correlation with Alberici, let’s ask, “for who”.

   When we talk of the efficiency of the economy (social mechanism, need and greed, purpose) what is really meant and what are the implications for different groups of people in Australia on one opinion or other of what “the economy” is and on what responsible basis its efficiency and benefits should be maximised and apportioned as per form.

10. GlenFebruary 20, 2018 at 10:16 am

    diannaart, this from 9 February 2018 on aph website:
    Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017 [Provisions]: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/CrisisResolutionPowers/Report

    It seems 2 of the main weakness in the legislation as far as protecting deposits goes are:
    1 – @ 2.29 – The bill was not clear enough on the topic of depositors’ savings according to one ex-APRA analyst and is actually “designed to confiscate bank deposits to ‘bail-in’ insolvent banks to save the financial system”;
    2 – @ 2.43 – The speed with which APRA will be allowed to use its powers is an issue. Note the wording – “The FCS will be activated by the Australian Government when an institution fails; and once activated will be administered by APRA”. If APRA is forced to wait even a week before they are instructed to act by government (either by deliberate delaying tactics or as the result of poor decision-making in a crisis), then it will be game over. On the upside, expect wild celebrations to break out in the Cayman Islands and other bankster havens.

    @ Andrew, that was an interesting read. What does it mean for AIMN and posters here I wonder.

11. diannaartFebruary 20, 2018 at 12:30 pm

    Thank you, Glen

    While CEC is a linked to such entities as 911truth and similar conspiracies, I really wish to understand more about this legislation. From what I understand, where the “bail-in” policy was passed in other (not all) OECD nations, there were clearer and more specific constraints on the type of deposits which could be confiscated – that is deposits of the ordinary punter would not be touched in the event of a “crisis”. I use italics because “crisis” gets regularly applied to outright lies by government, for example, Abbott’s deficient crisis.

    Hopefully, I will do some further research later today if able, there appears to be some smoke on this one.

    Andrew Chambers

    While I have no doubt, networks such as AIM or activists such as Get-up are being watched by those-who-would-control-us, the article is a piece of opinion from the IPA. Now if there is one organisation I wouldn’t trust further than I could toss slime mould, it is the IPA.

    This article centres around Section 18C, which is of more irritation for the religious and other organisations who like to curtail free speech of everyone except themselves. Seems to me, the conundrum for the IPA and their ilk is their fight for free speech is tricky if they wish to curtail the freedoms of the 5th estate/progressives and others while retaining such freedom for themselves. The current Rudd/homophobe investigation into religion’s right to discriminate is another example.

    Yes, as ever, we must remain vigilant and check and double check our facts, as humanly possible.

12. diannaartFebruary 20, 2018 at 12:39 pm

    In addition, I would posit, while much of the IPA article makes apparent sense, their target remains Turnbull – Truffles is far too ‘lefty’ for the IPA. They omit to say, at present, the far right have a louder and more comprehensive voice in MSM than do those they claim to want to protect – Bolt, Devine, Jones, Albrechtsen and so on.

13. Andrew ChambersFebruary 20, 2018 at 2:04 pm

    Hi Glen, The proposals for limiting freedom of speech and expression within the sphere of politics has the potential to ensnare everyone that makes a comment on politics. The intent is very clear, to suppress all negative or critical commentary that is contrary to the view and expressions of the Party in Power – a legislative hammer both parties would love to wield in cleansing a hostile social media landscape.
    There’s no interest in either party to encourage civic debate and discussion on the issues. To do so would break the contract between sponsor and party on the effective and clear passage of expected legislation (often drafted by “consultants” on the payroll of the same sponsor.) that supports their market or social ambitions.
    Academic studies demonstrate that the correlation between a constituency’s expressions of need or want and the delivery of equivalent policy is negligible – it’s about as likely as winning lottery (with some exceptions – recent examples in WA are the abandonment of the Roe 8, Highway through wetlands and the cancellation of the onshore Gas Processing Plant at James Price’s Point in the Kimberley – both brought about by large and vocal popularly supported demonstrations both on-line and on the ground) I’d suggest that you view this TED Talk for some insights and the academic references – (While it’s based on American politics, the parallels are clear and obvious.) //www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim
    While the actual implementation maybe nearly legally impossible, it provides a powerful deterrent that threatens to lock up campaigning organisation and individuals campaign budgets in a series of expensive legal battles, in proving that government should have no rights of limitation or jurisdiction within the realms of free political expression.
    The days of the party structure – the pyramid of power – is rapidly coming to an end, in much the same way a similar command and control government disappeared with the dismantling of the USSR. The evolution in Democracy means that there’s no longer any technological barrier to us regaining full democratic autonomy in being able to participate in deliberations on any issue and have a vote.
    This is what we at ODDP and many many other groups around the world are developing now, hence the escalation of the pace in unpalatable legislation and initiatives – restarting the TPP round and expanding it, bail in laws for banks, business tax cuts, increased surveillance and control through a much larger and more invasive Homeland Intelligence and Security service, unchecked military expenditure and our participation in the global weapons freemarket while ignoring the consequences of such an action by tightening immigration controls and maintaining barbaric detention centres, continued denial of Climate Control and attacks on alternative energy rather than investment and celebration.
    This government is no ship of fools, it’s a professional theatre company delivering a compelling soap opera which suits the needs of the MSM. Who’d want to waste time on facts and real controversy when the reality is that content simply holds the advertisements together?
    The Parties and their mates are quite methodically cementing in place a right to wield executive power through the uncontracted franchise of a vote that may occur on a semi regular basis. They’re under no legal obligation to act upon the promises they made to get elected nor are there any impediments to them adding to that “mandate” with a grab bag of grubby policies and legislation that deliver for the sponsors and consultants.
    Our promise is that Direct or Liquid Democracy representatives are elected on a contractual promise – To deliver the considered opinion and choice of their constituency to any house to which they are elected. There’s no if’s or buts – it gets voted the way a majority of your electorate decide (whether that be drawn from a pool of 3 people or 100% of the population – a decision gets made. Until the next time the issue arises for a vote.).
    As a child my education in politics was about Democracy, that was the root of a system that represented peak government and social engagement, shared responsibility and consequence with a right to make change, as and when needed. It was not a story of the Party, that story has been told many times before and it usually ends up the same way; too much power is invested in too few hands, they get corrupted and everything goes to shit (but for the few fortunates who retire, wealthy and unprosecuted for their crimes (with rare exception))
    As to the IPA, while the RW has an agenda, no doubt, they are not stupid in realising, as Diaanart points out, that the hammer is a blunt instrument and there’s no way they can draft the legislation that avoids stifling any critical comment from their side without the legislation being challenged for being discriminatory. It’s appalling legislation like most of the horror show these cynical manipulators are pushing through and should be quashed, but, hey, wait, we can’t do that – we don’t live in a Democracy