Heavens to Murgatroyd!

[Heavens to Murgatroyd! @MW80743101]

@ARLisOverTheBS Voting them out? Only problem, the alternatives are weak and complicit = no difference.

[muffy kittens 🦘🇦🇺🌷🌍🦜🐕🐕 @s14722839]

Aussies
I borrowed this....
Have a read.
Does it sound familiar ❓️
Does it sound like what's happening in our country ❓️
Absolutely ‼️‼️

When will Aussies say ENOUGH❓️

[Tina Zimmermann @TinaZimmermann4]

👺Symbolism
Trans👩‍🦳Former Thomas
💊 Haribo

💥The teddy bear or bear image is used as a mascot or identifier for pedophiles to each other‼️

John Howard phalic symbol, teady bears are a cult identifier of
🥲abused children‼️

[Heavens to Murgatroyd! @MW80743101]

@Jaxxrad Fines!

[Heavens to Murgatroyd! @MW80743101]

It’s their way of letting you know they’re going to hike insurance premiums.

[Heavens to Murgatroyd! @MW80743101]

@MrWhiplash_ @42 sec “ex wife of a president “?

[Heavens to Murgatroyd! @MW80743101]

@ct_dsf @novvibee @grok Lilly Von Who?

[Heavens to Murgatroyd! @MW80743101]

@FarmersFightbac @AustraliaCalli1 The question needs ssking. Where the hell are our constitutional lawyers. Any chance of a pro bono for these people? @AugustoZimmerm5 can you help them?

[The White Rabbit Podcast @AllBiteNoBark88]

The Aussie Buyers Club!
Launch week is here!
https://t.co/tPfuP4QSQX

[Heavens to Murgatroyd! @MW80743101]

@AllBiteNoBark88 Great initiative Nicola.

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

Did You Know - We are Going Backwards Faster Than any Other Developed Nation on Earth

Not one of the worst. The worst.

Real per capita household disposable income in Australia fell 1.1% in 2024. Across the OECD the average rose 1.8%. Finland was the only other developed nation to record any decline at all and theirs was 0.4%.

Australia was last, alone at the bottom.

And it did not start in 2024. Since mid-2022 real per capita household disposable income has fallen by around 8%. Over the year to June 2023 it was down 5.1% while the OECD average rose 2.6%.

At the same time full-time Australian workers are now paying an average of 20.3% of their income in tax up from 18.1% the previous year. The highest effective tax rate in over two decades.

The government’s response to this? A tax cut of $268 a year from July 2026, less than $5 a week.

Meanwhile gross national debt is heading to $1.22 trillion by 2029. Government spending is at 28.5% of GDP. The NDIS alone costs $52 billion a year more than the entire defence budget and is still growing faster than inflation under the government’s own plan.

Australians are not imagining it. They are not being dramatic. The data confirms it.

We are going backwards faster than any other developed nation on earth and the Treasurer is calling $5 a week responsible economic management.

What are your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

[Heavens to Murgatroyd! @MW80743101]

@Juliedonuts Do the calendar next.

[Heavens to Murgatroyd! @MW80743101]

@CanaryNCoal Interesting.

[Heavens to Murgatroyd! @MW80743101]

@XRP_DigiGold Moon map.

[Heavens to Murgatroyd! @MW80743101]

@Daniell64334313 Here’s the link to he full pdf. https://t.co/84GNEZuH1G

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

THE FAMILY FUNDING LABOR LISTS “DEFENCE INDUSTRIES” AS AN INVESTMENT POSITION.

The family that hosted the Prime Minister for dinner, and reportedly pledged $1 million to Labor, runs an Australian investment vehicle that lists Defence Industries among its investment positions. It is published on the family’s own website.

Nothing here is hidden. It comes from their own page, and from published court and inquiry records.

That is the point.

Lee Family Investments sets out four positions in its own words: Healthcare and Biotechnology, Technology and AI, Community Infrastructure, and Defence Industries.

Consider whose family this is. The father, Phillip Dong Fang Lee, was recorded by the 2022 Bell inquiry moving about $2.27 billion through the Star casino, and named the largest user of a banned channel that disguised gambling as hotel expenses to circumvent China’s currency-export controls. The Commonwealth’s own tax office has pursued the family through the Federal Court for over $272 million.

The family fought to suppress that case and lost on appeal.

That is the family whose vehicle lists a position in Australian defence industries. And it reportedly pledged $1 million to the party that holds the Defence portfolio, and seated the Prime Minister at its table.

Here is the context that matters. Under Australian law, any foreign person acquiring a 10% interest in a defence or “national security business” must get mandatory approval from the Foreign Investment Review Board, before completing, regardless of value.

That regime was tightened in 2024 by Treasurer Jim Chalmers, citing national security. And the government has used it: it has blocked and forced the divestment of investors with links to China, and in January 2026 a court imposed $14 million in penalties on one that breached a divestment order.

That is the framework a China-linked family listing a defence-investment position now sits inside.

The vehicle states its philosophy on the same page. Its investments are “informed by biblical principles.” And it says: “The greatest tool of a peacemaker is the sword they choose not to draw. Those who reject the importance of the sword are naive.”

Fair reading. A stated position is an expressed interest, not a confirmed holding, there is no public record the family has acquired an Australian defence asset, and none is asserted here. Investing in Australian industry is lawful, and the FIRB regime exists precisely to screen it.

Phillip Dong Fang Lee has not been charged with any offence; the casino findings fell on Star. No misconduct is alleged against any member of the Lee family. Every fact comes from the family’s own website or a published court, inquiry or regulator record.

The point is architecture. A family under a $272 million Commonwealth tax pursuit, with a documented history of moving money to circumvent China’s capital controls, publishes a position in Australian defence industries, while reportedly pledging $1 million to the party that runs Defence and the FIRB, and hosting the Prime Minister to dinner.

So the questions the Prime Minister has not answered. Where did the money come from? What has happened to the $272 million his tax office is chasing? And is any member of this family, or any of its vehicles, seeking to invest in Australian defence industries — and has it come before the Foreign Investment Review Board?
He told us he attends lots of functions.

Cold hard facts. Sourced. Corrected when wrong.

What’s your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
Lee Family Investments (https://t.co/Y4xp3p5hU8), “Our Positions” — Healthcare and Biotechnology, Technology and AI, Community Infrastructure, Defence Industries; philosophy incl. “biblical principles” and the “sword” quote (page captured 2026). Lee v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2023] FCAFC 22; 296 FCR 272 — ~$272m; file NSD1022/2022. Bell inquiry into Star Entertainment (NSW ICC), 2022 — ~$2.27bn, largest UnionPay user. FIRB / Foreign

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

3/5 - THEY CAPPED WHAT YOU CAN GIVE THEM. THEN VOTED THEMSELVES $5.6 MILLION A YEAR OF YOUR MONEY, PAID IN ADVANCE.

From January there’s a new payment called administrative assistance funding. $7,500 for every MP, every quarter. $3,750 for every senator, every quarter. Paid in advance.

The first payment is due before 7 January 2027, covering a quarter that began on 1 October 2026 and will already have finished by the time the money lands. Across 151 House seats and 76 Senate seats that is $1,417,500 a quarter. $5,670,000 a year. $30,000 per MP, annually, from you.

Election funding rises at the same time to $5 per vote, indexed twice a year, allocated on how well you polled last time. To receive any of it you must hold at least one sitting seat. No seat, nothing. Ever. In fairness, public funding does reduce reliance on private donors, and independents with a seat qualify on the same terms as parties.

But run the sequence. A new party contests an election with zero public funding, against parties drawing millions in public funding, under donation caps that stop it raising the private money to close the gap.

Private money capped. Public money increased. Distributed only to the people who already won.
Labor and the Coalition passed it together in February 2025. The crossbench called it a stitch-up and lost the vote. It was announced as integrity reform.

Cold hard facts. Sourced. Corrected when wrong.

What’s your Thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 2025 (Cth), assented 20 February 2025
AEC, Administrative Assistance Funding Guideline v1
AEC, Transitional Rules — first payment date and eligible quarter

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

2/5 - THE HIGH COURT TOLD PARLIAMENT IT HAD EXCEEDED ITS POWER. PARLIAMENT PASSED IT AGAIN THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

In 2019 the High Court struck down section 302CA of the Electoral Act. The section let federal donation rules override state donation laws. Queensland challenged it. In Spence v Queensland the Court held it invalid, beyond the Commonwealth’s legislative power. Not too broad. Not in need of adjustment. Beyond power.

Queensland’s restrictions survived intact. Canberra lost. Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ dissented. The majority did not The following year Parliament re-enacted it.

The 2020 redraft ties the override to a “federal account”, money goes into a designated account, gets used for federal purposes, and state donation caps don’t reach it. The regulator’s own published example has a $20,000 donation to a party’s South Australian branch, with neither the donor nor the branch subject to South Australian donation law.

New South Wales caps donations. South Australia caps donations. Victoria has now tried twice and been struck down once. The federal channel runs past all of them.

In fairness, Parliament is entitled to legislate again after an adverse ruling. That is how the system works, and the redraft was narrower than what the Court rejected.

But the purpose never changed. It was told no, and it kept redrafting until the answer was yes. When the umpire rules against them, they don’t accept the ruling. They amend the rulebook.

Cold hard facts. Sourced. Corrected when wrong.

What’s your Thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
Spence v Queensland [2019] HCA 15, 15 May 2019
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Act 2020 (Cth)
AEC, Disclosure Overview — operation of s 302CA

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

THEY PROFILE EVERY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL THEY NEED. THEY TOLD THE SENATE THEMSELVES.

Accenture told an Australian Senate committee, in writing, that they systematically create “power maps” of government officials. Each map contains the official’s reporting relationships, their “social style”, whether they are “analytical, expressive or a driver” and the Accenture employee assigned as their “primary relationship owner.” They track each official’s satisfaction with Accenture. They store it in Salesforce. They use it to prepare bids.

On most engagements. As part of their annual account planning. Hundreds of these maps for government opportunities since 2015.
Every other firm, KPMG, Deloitte, EY, BCG, McKinsey, PwC, denied using the practice. When the Senate asked for a real example, Accenture provided a template.

Not a live one.

In fairness, client relationship management is standard business practice. But no other firm admitted to categorising the personality types of public servants. No other firm admitted to assigning handlers. And no other firm declined to show the Senate what the maps actually look like.

This is the company that has won $8.17 billion in Commonwealth contracts, $8.9 billion with acquired subsidiaries, across 34 spellings of its own name. Under both sides of politics. Now you know how they win it. They don’t wait for a tender to drop. They profile the people who write the tenders. They categorise their personalities. They assign a handler. And they track whether the official thinks Accenture is doing a good job.

None of it is illegal. That’s the problem.

Cold hard facts. Sourced. Corrected when wrong.

What’s your Thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
Accenture answers to questions on notice, Senate F&PA References Committee (APH Document Store)
https://t.co/ue9HAbX4z7, 3 September 2023 — all other firms denied the practice

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

THE POWER MAPS ARE THE KEY TO EVERYTHING I’VE SHOWN YOU.

Fourteen posts. $8.9 billion nobody could count. A lobbyist register that exempts the biggest lobbyists. A probity system that starts after the relationships are built. A minister’s register designed for 1984. A revolving door with no lock. Now I know how it connects.

The “primary relationship owner” on each power map is a lobbyist. Paid to build a relationship with a government official to win contracts. But the Lobbying Code exempts in-house staff by design. Eighteen years. Zero breaches.

The maps are built before any tender drops. By the time probity starts watching, the handlers are assigned, the personalities categorised, the relationships built. Probity watches the contract. Nobody watches the power map.

When Accenture staff move into the public service, they carry everything they know. Accenture told the Senate in writing: they do not track employees who enter the APS. They do not track whether former staff in government still hold Accenture equity. Nobody does.

Staff movement between sectors can be beneficial. That is the honest defence. But nobody tracks what goes with them.

The public service was capped at 167,596. The work walked out the door. The firms that picked it up now profile the officials who remained. When those officials leave, the knowledge goes into the next power map. Under Labor. Under the Coalition. Neither side built a lock.

None of it is illegal. That’s the problem.

Cold hard facts. Sourced. Corrected when wrong.
What’s your Thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺
Sources:
Power mapping: Accenture QON, Senate F&PA References Committee (APH)
Lobbyist register zero breaches: Published Post 7
APS cap 167,596: Published Post 1, sourced to APSC
Accenture does not track ex-employees entering APS: same QON document