Peter Lyndon-James

Helping you find TRUTH. Cold hard facts. 100% truth. No Misinformation. “Corrected when Wrong”.

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

A Rule for Thee but not for Me…!

The double standard is real and documented. Here’s how it works in plain terms.

What an ordinary Australian gets jailed for

If you run a small business and route customer payments through a related shell company to lower your tax bill, that’s tax evasion, Jail.

If you accept money from a property developer who’s banned from donating in your state, that’s a criminal offence under NSW electoral law. Fines or jail.

If you take taxpayer money for one purpose and channel it back to your own private benefit, that’s misappropriation. Jail.

If you fail to declare beneficial ownership of a company you actually control, that’s an ASIC offence. Significant penalties.

If you set up complex corporate structures specifically to obscure who’s behind transactions from regulators, that’s the textbook definition of money laundering under AUSTRAC rules. Jail.

What political parties do legally

Route donations through Associated Entities so the original donor’s name doesn’t appear on the party’s return. Legal.

Take banned property developer donations through a third-party foundation that channels them to the party, ICAC found nine NSW Liberal MPs did exactly this through The Millennium Forum, with “intention of evading political donations laws.” Findings made. Nobody jailed. The same legal entity continues operating today as Bunori Pty Ltd / Federal Forum.

Take $2,500 a year from each MP’s taxpayer-funded electorate allowance, run it through a party-owned company, and have the company donate the money back to the party. Legal. Bill Shorten called it “money laundering.” Marque Lawyers called it “as brutally simple as laundering drug money through a casino.” ANAO investigation found “no financial impropriety.” Nobody charged.

Operate poker machine venues that drain $110 million a year from working Australians, register the venues as the party’s Associated Entity, and use the profits to fund the party that regulates poker machines. Legal.

Negotiate a “transparency reform” with your political opponents that exempts your own biggest funding pipeline (union affiliation fees, associated entity flows) from the new caps. Legal.

Why the system stays this way

The same political class that benefits from the structure writes the rules that govern the structure. Every reform proposal goes through the parliament. The parliament is filled with the parties that own the Associated Entities, the foundations, the data companies, and the gambling clubs. They will never voluntarily legislate themselves out of the structure that funds them.

That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s the documented public record.

The double standard, named directly

A small businessman who structured his affairs the way the major parties structure theirs would be in court. The small businessman doesn’t get the AEC saying “we have no evidence to determine whether the disclosure was incorrect” when $47 million appears on his return for one year and disappears the next he gets audited, charged, and prosecuted.

The major parties get the benefit of a regulatory framework they wrote. Ordinary Australians get a regulatory framework they had no say in designing.

What’s your thoughts…?

Peter lyndon-James 🇦🇺

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

THE REVERSAL

A good idea sat on the shelf for eleven years. The week Labor needed a favour, it passed in under a month.

Here’s how Canberra really works.

The ban on super funds borrowing to buy homes isn’t new. The Coalition’s own inquiry recommended it back in 2014.

The financial regulators backed it in 2019 and again in 2022. For over a decade it sat there, sound enough that the experts kept recommending it, ignored by every government that could’ve acted.

Then Labor needed the Greens to pass its housing tax package.

And an eleven-year-old idea nobody would touch was suddenly law, a bill introduced in late May, through both houses by 25 June. Rushed through in under a month, on a measure that doesn’t even start until 2027.

Let me be straight about my beef here, because it’s not the tax policy. Reasonable people can argue negative gearing all day.

My problem is how it got done.

The policy might’ve been right the whole time, the regulators certainly thought so. But being right never got it passed. Being useful did. It only became law the moment it was worth something in a trade.

And the tell is the timing. The Tax Institute pointed out that urgent measures, ones that actually start this year, were left sitting, while this non-urgent one got fast-tracked. There’s only one reason to rush a law you don’t need yet: someone needed the deal now.

That’s the whole game. A thing doesn’t get done in this country because it’s right. It gets done when someone with the numbers needs something back for it.

Pass it on its merits, in the open, with the people it affects in the room. That’s all. That’s the entire ask.

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

What’s your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
2014 Financial System Inquiry (Murray) recommendation on SMSF borrowing; Council of Financial Regulators reviews 2019 & 2022; Chalmers citing Murray Inquiry, 23 June 2026; Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 — introduced 28 May, passed both houses 25 June, Royal Assent 26 June; Tax Institute submission to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, 10 June 2026 (accelerated timetable; urgent measures left un-legislated).

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

THE TOLL

Chalmers admitted he didn’t have the numbers. So he went shopping. Here’s what one budget cost, and who paid for it.

Watch how a decision really gets made in this country.

Every step of it legal.

Labor wanted its housing tax package through, scrapping the capital gains discount, winding back negative gearing. Whatever you think of that, and there’s a real case for it, they didn’t have the Senate to pass it. Chalmers said it flat out: “nobody has the numbers on their own.”

So the Greens named their price and it wasn’t one thing. It was three.

One. A ban on self-managed super funds borrowing to buy a home.

Two. Stripping the Treasurer’s own power over the capital gains discount, locked away for good.

Three. An eight-week freeze on the entire NDIS overhaul. Nothing to do with any of it. Just parked, to seal the deal.

That’s the toll for one budget. Two permanent changes and a stalled disability reform, traded across a table in under a month.

Now here’s the part that’ll get you. The Greens sold the super ban as closing a loophole for “wealthy property investors.”

So let’s go to the Tax Office’s own numbers.

The people who use these loans hold super balances between half a million and a million dollars. Two-thirds are under fifty. It’s about one in ten self-managed funds. Not the top end of town, the sparkie, the subbie, the small-business owner trying to build something for the back half of their life.

They didn’t shut a loophole for the rich. They pulled up the ladder on the people climbing it.

And this isn’t just me. The Tax Institute, hardly a pack of firebrands , told the Senate the whole thing was rushed, with “the absence of prior consultation.” The peak body for the super sector says nobody in government even rang them.

Here’s what should’ve happened. A change to people’s retirement gets an inquiry, gets consultation, and passes because it’s right, in daylight, not overnight as the price of someone else’s votes.

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

What’s your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
PM’s Office statement & Chalmers doorstop 23 June 2026; Senate Hansard 25 June 2026 (bill passed 35–25; House 98–39); Accountants Daily & Mortgage Professional Australia (three-part Greens deal incl. NDIS delay); ATO SMSF Statistical Report Sept 2025 (LRBA balances, ~11% usage, under-50 data); Tax Institute submission to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, 10 June 2026; Capital Brief (SMSF Association CEO Peter Burgess not consulted); Treasury (Chalmers “less than 1%” remarks).

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

@TheIPA Agree

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

POST F — THE MACHINE REACHES WEST

Everything I've shown you this week happened in the eastern states. So I went looking at home.

Western Australia runs a version of the same machine, smaller, but with one difference that should bother you more, not less. In the east, the funds that pay the unions are private trusts.

In WA, two of the entities on the unions' own receipts are statutory bodies, created by parliament, funded by compulsory levy.

The Construction Training Fund, the state authority financed by a levy on every building job in WA, paid the CFMEU about $590,000 across three years, on the union's own federal returns.

MyLeave, the statutory long service leave board, appears as a payer too. I'll say the fair thing up front: the likely explanation is training delivery contracts, the union runs training, the fund buys training, and I haven't yet seen the contracts.

I'll show you them when I do.

But sit with the structure: in WA it isn't a union-and-employer trust paying the union, it's arms of the state. And the rest of the pattern is here too.

Reddifund, WA's redundancy fund, sponsors the union's May Day at $20,000 a year. The AWU has become WA Labor's steady union funder, $180,000 last year, double the year before, right on the election.

And the Victorian electrical union quietly sends its WA branch more than $300,000 a year, rising, the eastern machine, subsidising the west. This is the first WA post.

It won't be the last, 1000% for sure, researched factual facts to follow, in due time.

100% Truth, Corrected when Wrong, No Miss-Information.

What's your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
- AEC Transparency Register, Detailed Receipts — Construction Training Fund → CFMEU ($399,435 FY2017-18; $164,748 FY2018-19; $25,824 FY2019-20). MyLeave → AMWU ($18,882, 2019-20). "REDDIFUND – MAYDAY" ($20,000, 2024-25) and prior Reddifund lines. AWU WA Branch → WA Labor ($179,918, 2024-25; $80,764 prior). ETU Victoria → CEPU Engineering & Electrical Division WA Branch ($306,487, 2024-25, rising series from 2020-21).

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

POST E — THE FUNDS HAVE OPINIONS

Here's a question nobody asks about the worker entitlement funds: what do they do besides hold money?

The answer, in Incolink's own annual reports: they do politics.

The fund's own words, it "strongly advocated with all levels of Government," it "successfully advocated for major investment in social housing and construction industry economic stimulus," it commissioned a report from the McKell Institute, a think tank named after a Labor premier.

One of the training bodies in the ecosystem even appears in the AEC's records making a political donation in its own name. Now, some of that advocacy, vaccines on worksites during COVID, was plainly in workers' interests, and I'll say so.

That's not the finding.

The finding is this: try to find any of it on a register. You can't.

These entities aren't registered lobbyists, the lobbyist registers only cover firms lobbying for clients, and an organisation lobbying for itself is invisible to every register in the country.

They're not registered with the AEC.

They file nothing about their advocacy, anywhere, to anyone. Billions of dollars of workers' money, held by entities that advocate to governments, commission aligned research, and occasionally donate, with no disclosure obligation of any kind.

Not because they're breaking a rule. Because no rule was ever written.

I showed you earlier this week that Parliament tried to write one in 2019 and the Bill died. This is what lives in the space where that law should be.

What's your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
Incolink annual reports 2020 and 2021 (advocacy statements, McKell commissioning — https://t.co/hyztQjrjRf); AEC Transparency Register (PICAC donation, 2020-21); Australian Government Register of Lobbyists scope (https://t.co/7pfsnUlUDV — third-party lobbyists only); Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2019, APH record (lapsed 25 July 2022).

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

POST D — THE DELOITTE VERDICT

Cbus is the $105 billion construction super fund, the fund that holds the retirement savings of every construction worker in the country who joined it. In December 2024, the fund published a Deloitte independent review it had commissioned into a specific expenditure class: partnership agreements that channel millions of dollars a year from Cbus to its union sponsors, including the CFMEU.

Here's what Deloitte concluded, in its own words: Cbus has "failings in the design and operation of its BFID arrangements", its Best Financial Interests Duty arrangements, and Deloitte "were unable to conclude whether the Expenditure Decisions were made for the sound and prudent management of the Trustee's business operations or if they achieved the intended benefits."

The fund's own independent reviewer could not conclude the union payments met the statutory best-financial-interests-of-members test.

That is not a fringe finding. Under superannuation law, trustees must apply members' money in the members' best financial interests. Cbus commissioned Deloitte to check whether the union payments met that test. Deloitte's answer, on Cbus's own website: it could not conclude they did. The documentation, systems and processes "do not allow for that decision to be concluded clearly."

The lawful other side. Deloitte found all current and nominated directors "fit and proper." Cbus accepted all 26 recommendations. A rectification plan is under APRA oversight. In February 2025 the trustee entered a court-enforceable undertaking. APRA opened an investigation.

Cbus is doing what the regulator asked. And Deloitte's finding is about documentation of decisions, not proof that decisions were wrong.

That's the shape. A super fund's own independent reviewer cannot say the payments it made to unions met the statutory test the payments must meet. That verdict is on the fund's own website.

Every construction worker with a Cbus account has a stake in what the investigation finds.

The regulator's decision is the one to watch.

What's your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
Deloitte Independent Review into Cbus expenditure decisions and BFID arrangements (published https://t.co/KuXkquTmo8, 3 December 2024). APRA public statements (Investment Magazine, February 2025) — court-enforceable undertaking and open investigation into possible breaches of the SIS Act with focus on expenditure management practices. Cbus Annual Report 2025 — 26 recommendations accepted, rectification plan under APRA oversight.

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

POST C — MEMBERS' MONEY WASTED

I want to show you what a single financial year of members' money going up in smoke looks like, on the union's own audited accounts, signed by the administrator.

The CFMEU Victorian branch's financial statements for the year to 30 June 2025 record an impairment of $4,926,610 on the AS400 Modernisation Project. AS400 was a bespoke membership system commissioned by the union's past leadership, projected to cost the Victorian branch over $10 million.

The administrator wrote nearly $5 million of it off in a single year.

Same accounts, same year: an impairment of $27.6 million on land and buildings.

The Victorian branch reported a net loss of $1.6 million in FY25. It reported a net loss of $18.5 million in FY24.

Add it up. About $32.5 million of value destruction on the union's own audited accounts, disclosed by the administrator, in one financial year. Members' money. Not government money. Not fund money. Members' subscriptions, over years, converted into a bespoke IT system and property assets that had to be written down.

The lawful other side. Impairment is an accounting recognition, not a cash loss, the loss happened years earlier, when the money was spent. The administration is doing what an administration is supposed to do: mark the books to reality. Under previous union leadership, both projects were signed off as members' interest at the time. Building projects and IT projects go wrong across every organisation of that size. The disclosure is the remedy, every figure I've quoted is out because the administrator put it out.

That's the finding.

The union's own books, once the administrator opened them, showed $32.5 million of members' money that couldn't be defended by the assets it bought. Ask what governance produces that outcome, and ask what governance would have caught it earlier. The reform Bill that would have required more disclosure of grants and loans between registered organisations and their controlled entities was in the Senate in 2019. It never passed.

What's your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
- CFMEU (C&G Division) Victorian Branch financial report FY2025 — filed with Fair Work Commission, signed by the administrator (AS400 Modernisation Project impairment $4,926,610; land and buildings impairment $27.6 million; net loss $1.6 million FY2025 and $18.5 million FY2024). Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2019, APH bill record r6347 — lapsed 25 July 2022.

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

POST B — THE UNION BRANCH ISN'T A UNION ANYMORE

The federal Queensland branch of the CFMEU earned $8.39 million in the year to 30 June 2025. Here's how much came from member dues, on a forensic accountant's report tendered to the Queensland Commission of Inquiry: $126,748.

One and a half per cent.

The rest, 98.5%, came from what the forensic accountant calls the enterprise-agreement ecosystem. Apprentice grants $7.11 million. EBA income $390,000. Compliance fees $270,000. Meeting fees $261,000. Promotional charges $121,000. Sponsorship $103,000.

Not one of those is dues. All of it is money paid into or through the funds that construction enterprise agreements make employers contribute to, Incolink, BERT, BEWT, Cbus, Protect, being paid back out to the union as fees and grants.

Natalie Faulkner from FTI Consulting reported this on 15 June 2026, from a general-ledger analysis running from 2015 to 2025. She found the pivot point precisely. On 25 August 2020, membership subscriptions in this entity collapsed from $9.62 million to $163,918 in a single year. The dues moved to a state-registered entity under a Service Agreement dated the same day. The federal branch became a fund-fee-and-grant collector.

Now the lawful other side. The Multiplex enterprise agreement Faulkner traced provides for no payment to the union at all. Employers pay the funds, not the union. What the union earns is second-order, sponsorships, promotional charges, compliance fees, training grants. All legal. All disclosed to fund boards.

No adverse finding has been made about the arrangement itself. And it doesn't stand on its own, the employer peak body Master Builders Victoria runs on the same class of revenue, from the same fund, at a similar concentration. Both sides.

That's the point. A registered trade union whose federal Queensland branch has been comprehensively converted, from 2020 onwards, into an entity that runs on fund revenue rather than member dues, and the enterprise agreements it negotiates are what feed it. Ask what that changes about who it works for.

What's your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
- FTI Consulting Interim Report by Natalie Faulkner, tendered to Queensland Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU, 15 June 2026 (general-ledger analysis CY2015–FY2025). CFMEU federal Queensland branch financial statements FY2025 (independent audited accounts, revenue lines matching Faulkner's figures).

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

POST A — MBV DISCLOSED IT

Here's something that landed on the public record without much notice. Master Builders Victoria, the Victorian employer peak body for builders, filed its FY24-25 audited financial statements with the Fair Work Commission on 8 December 2025. And for the first time in its published accounts, it named Incolink as the source of its grant income.

The figures. Incolink paid MBV $16,733,891 in the 2025 financial year: an $8,672,070 training grant, a $6,881,848 grant toward MBV's new Collaboration and Innovation Centre, and $1,179,973 in OHS training. Combined, that's 98.9% of every grant dollar MBV received.

Against MBV's total revenue of $30,485,833, that's 54.9%.

The same accounts disclose a further Incolink commitment: $15 million toward the Collaboration and Innovation Centre, of which $6.88 million was recognised in 2024-25 and $1.70 million in 2023-24, leaving $6.41 million as a remaining contract liability.

Incolink is the Victorian construction redundancy fund, built on employer contributions made under enterprise agreements. It is jointly governed by union and employer nominees under APRA-supervised trustee rules. Capital grants to industry training and welfare bodies are common in the sector, and none of the arrangements described above has attracted an adverse regulatory finding.

What's new is the disclosure itself.

The MBV FY23-24 report a year earlier didn't name Incolink at all, grant income appeared as a single unattributed "Grants" line. A year later, post-FWC-inquiry, the source is named. Every figure above is a direct read of MBV's own audited statement, filed with the FWC and publicly available at the source cited. Every figure comes from the entity that received the money, disclosing it publicly.

That's what disclosure exists for. And this is what the disclosure said.

What's your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
Master Builders Victoria General Purpose Financial Report FY24-25, filed with Fair Work Commission FR2025/161, 8 December 2025 — Note 3(a) itemising grant income by source (Incolink training grant $8,672,070 + CIC grant $6,881,848 + OHS training grant $1,179,973 = $16,733,891); total grant income $16,917,435; consolidated revenue $30,485,833; Note 8 identifying $15 million in Incolink CIC grant funding with $6,881,848 recognised FY25 and $1,699,310 recognised FY24. MBV FY23-24 General Purpose Financial Report, filed with Fair Work Commission — Revenue Note 3 disclosing grant income of $11,224,948 as an unattributed line (comparison basis for the FY25 first-time-named disclosure).

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

AUSTRALIA TAKE NOTICE - THIS IS A FACT…!

I have said it before and I’ll say it again, One Nation will be a wrecking ball for Australian Politics.

Australians have had enough. We’ve watched Labor and Liberal take turns running this country into the ground for 30 years and call it democracy.

Both sides selling the farm and gutting Australia. Both sides promising the world and delivering band-aids while looking after themselves while we cop the bill.

The two party system isn’t broken. It’s working exactly the way it was designed to work. Protect the club, lock out the outsiders, swap the furniture around every few years and call it change.

Australians need to put every bit of weight they’ve got behind that wrecking ball. Every vote that goes to One Nation is the weight in the ball and the harder it swings, the bigger the hole it puts in the wall. That’s the only language Canberra understands.

The election starts now, not in one year, two or in three, Now. Every day we stay silent the country slides further backwards.

Watch what’s happening right now. Since the Iran war and the fuel crisis, the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor are all scrambling. All of a sudden they’re picking up policies on fuel security, sovereign capability and national resilience. Policies they ignored for decades.

Policies they mocked when they heard them, Policies that One Nation has been punching out for 30 years.

Pauline Hanson has been saying the same thing for 30 years and she hasn’t wavered once. What she said back then is exactly what’s happening now. No other party can say that, not one of them.

They bend with the polls, they flip with the headlines, they rewrite their platform every election cycle based on what focus groups tell them.

Not Pauline. She’s stood there while they laughed at her, while they hounded her, while they tried to destroy her and now 30 years later the same people who mocked her are stealing her policies and calling them their own.

That’s not policy, that’s panic.

They weren’t listening before. Now all of a sudden they’re listening because they can smell the votes walking out the door. They’re making it up as they go. Labor’s doing it, Liberal’s are doing it, Nationals are doing it, all of them scrambling to catch up to a woman who saw this coming three decades ago.

This is the moment, this is why the wrecking ball has to swing.

Swing the wrecking ball people

What’s your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

So you support One Nation do you.?

You’re going to want to quit. Let’s get that straight right now.

Somewhere between now and the next election, Pauline Hanson is going to make a decision you don’t understand. Something that doesn’t sit right, or the media will twist into the worst possible headline and shove down your throat on every channel, every website, every radio station in the country.

And in that moment, you’re going to have a choice.

The media will tell you one story. One Nation won’t be able to tell you theirs. That’s how politics works. There are deals done behind closed doors that can never be explained publicly. Conversations that stay in the room. Compromises that look terrible from the outside but made sense when you were sitting at the table with a gun to your head.

You won’t see any of that. You’ll just see the headline, the headline will be designed to do one thing, make you walk away.

That’s the game and if you don’t understand it now, you’ll fall for it later.

Supporting One Nation isn’t a summer holiday. You’re signing up for every season. Summer, winter, autumn, spring, and some of those seasons are going to be brutal.

There’ll be weeks where nothing makes sense. Weeks where you’re embarrassed. Weeks where your mates are laughing at you for backing them.

That’s where faith comes in. Trust. The understanding that you can’t see the full picture from the outside, and neither can the bloke on Sky News telling you it’s all falling apart.

When soldiers go to war, they don’t get a full briefing on every decision the generals make. They hold the line because they believe in what they’re fighting for. They trust that the people making the calls have information they don’t and they don’t desert the moment things get uncomfortable.

She’s going to make calls you disagree with. She’s going to cop headlines that make her look like she’s sold out. The media is going to paint every stumble as proof the whole thing’s cooked. And you’re going to have to decide whether you trust the woman who survived prison, survived 30 years of attacks, and built a movement from nothing, or whether you trust the people who put her there.

Don’t sign up for this if you’re only here for the good days. One Nation needs supporters who’ll stand in the mud, not just wave from the grandstand.

Because if you bail the moment it gets hard, you’re not a supporter. You’re exactly what the establishment ordered.

What’s your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

“He leased an Australian port to China, then took $880,000 a year from the buyer.”

ANDREW ROBB / PORT OF DARWIN

A Trade Minister signed off a 99-year lease of an Australian port to a Chinese company. The day before he left politics, that same company put him on $880,000 a year.

This one’s been on the public record for years, and it still stops me cold every time.

In 2015, Andrew Robb was the federal Trade Minister. On his watch, the Port of Darwin was leased to Landbridge Group, controlled by Chinese billionaire Ye Cheng, a member of the CPPCC, an advisory body to the Chinese Communist Party. The lease runs 99 years.

On 1 July 2016, the day before the federal election, with Robb on his way out of Parliament, Landbridge began paying him a consultancy worth $880,000 a year. The terms: $73,000 a month for “strategic advice.” No specified deliverables. Thirty days’ notice to end it.

The ministerial standards say a former minister should wait eighteen months before cashing in on their portfolio. Robb waited zero days. He took roughly $2 million from Landbridge before quitting the arrangement in 2019, just ahead of the new foreign-influence register that would have required him to declare it.

I’m not alleging a crime. No crime has been found, and I’m not a court. What I’m pointing at is the structure: the decision in office, the beneficiary, the destination after office, the timing. Lease the port, leave the Parliament, bank the money. All legal. That’s exactly what should worry you.

This is what “legal corruption” looks like in Australia. Not envelopes of cash. A consultancy contract, signed on the way out the door, from the company you just did the favour for.

Cold hard facts. Sourced. Corrected when wrong.

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources — check it yourself
- Michael West Media: https://t.co/HMT5Zyqz7H
- The Canberra Times (leaked contract, judge’s assessment): https://t.co/LDXPh2DYpI
- Originally: ABC Four Corners + Fairfax/SMH, June 2017 (Nick McKenzie reporting)

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

The Government is sucking us dry to pay for their mistakes.

The new tax on your family trust does one thing: it pays the interest on their debt.

Here’s a number they don’t put on the budget night posters. The interest bill on government debt this year is $27 billion. By 2030 it’s $42 billion. That’s not paying anything back. That’s just the interest. Just keeping the lights on the debt they’ve already run up.

Work it out and it’s about $50,000 a minute. Gone. While you were reading that sentence, there’s another fifty grand of your money paying interest on borrowing you never agreed to.

Now. In May they announced a 30% tax on family trusts. They dressed it up as going after the rich. You know who actually runs through a family trust?

The tradie, the farmer, the bloke with three trucks and eight staff. The family business that’s been structured that way for thirty years because their accountant told them to.

The genuinely rich don’t lose a wink over this. They restructure into a company by lunchtime, or they shift the lot to Singapore. Their advisers are already telling them to. The one who can’t move, who can’t restructure, who just cops it? You.

And here’s the part that should make you put your phone down and swear.

That trust tax is forecast to raise about $3.8 billion a year. The interest bill grows by about $3.8 billion a year. The same number. They are taking the money out of your family business to cover the growth in the interest on their own debt.

Not schools, hospitals or the pension. The interest on their mistakes.

Think about how that works in your house. You blow the budget, year after year. The repayments balloon. So you walk into your kid’s room, take money out of their piggy bank, and use it to pay the interest on your credit card. Then you tell them it’s about fairness.

That’s the deal. They ran the country into enough debt that the interest alone now eats $42 billion a year, and rather than stop, rather than sack anyone, rather than answer for a single blown project, they’ve gone looking for who’s easiest to squeeze. Not the end of town that can leave. You.

The one who’s still here, still working, still paying on the day it’s due.

You’re not funding a country anymore. You’re funding the interest on their stuff-ups and they’ve got the front to call it fair.

How much longer are we putting up with this?

What’s your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

ANTISEMITISM LAWS - DIDN’T MAKE THE PRESS CONFERENCE

The woman writing Australia’s antisemitism laws has a $50,000 problem sitting in her own house.

Jillian Segal is the government’s antisemitism envoy. She wrote the plan Albanese adopted, the one that wants to monitor media and pull funding from universities.

Here’s what didn’t make the press conference.

A company run by her husband and his brother, Henroth Investments, tipped $50,000 into Advance, the hard-right lobby group behind the Voice “No” campaign that pumps out anti-immigration content. Same mob also handed $75,000 to the Liberal Party’s NSW and WA branches. It’s all there in black and white in the AEC records.

Segal says she had nothing to do with it. Fair enough, nobody’s saying she signed the cheque.

But here’s the bit that should stop you. She was handed one of the most powerful advisory jobs in the country, with no confirmation hearing. No public grilling. No conflict-of-interest check put on the table for you to see. Just appointed.

Three organisations called for her to step down. The Treasurer shrugged and said it’s “a matter for her.”

Imagine any other government adviser whose household was quietly funding a partisan attack machine. You’d want to know. You’d have every right to.

This isn’t about her faith or her background. It’s about money, power, and a job that came with zero scrutiny.

So why does the person shaping our speech laws get a free pass everyone else would never get?

Cold Hard Facts, Corrected When Wrong.

What’s your Thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
- $50,000 to Advance (27 June 2024) + $75,000 to NSW/WA Liberal branches, 2023–24 — AEC donor returns, via The Klaxon, SBS News, Canberra Times

- Henroth Investments directors John Roth & Stanley Roth — ASIC records

- Segal’s denial (“I certainly won’t dictate his”) — statement to The Age/SBS

- Calls to resign (three-plus organisations) + Chalmers “matter for her” — SBS News

- Segal’s plan (media monitoring, university funding termination) — 20-page Special Envoy report, July 2025

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

90 MINUTES - AND NOBODY ASKED THE ONE QUESTION

The head of ASIO sat in the box for 90 minutes. Nobody asked him what ASIO knew about the killers.

Let that sink in.

A royal commission into a massacre. The spy chief on the stand, and the one question that actually matters, what did you know about these two men?, never got asked.

The lawyers had the material. They knew the son had been investigated back in 2019 and flagged on a watchlist in 2022. It was sitting in ASIO’s own written submission.

They just…. didn’t put it to him.

A federal police officer got 37 minutes. Asked if anti-Jewish violence was a priority before the attack, he said “strategic priority”, and was ushered off before anyone asked what that meant.

The hearings examining the attack itself? Held behind closed doors. Eyewitnesses who were there that night? Ruled out. Five of the recommendations? Classified, you’re not allowed to read them.

This is what accountability looks like when it’s designed not to find anything.

When the one bloke who knows walks out unquestioned, that’s not an oversight. That’s the point.

Who decided not to ask?

Cold Hard Facts, Corrected When Wrong.

What’s your Thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
- Aaron Patrick, The Nightly (Burgess 90 mins, not questioned on watchlist; AFP officer Stephen Nutt 37 mins); ASIO submission to Royal Commission (2019 investigation, 2022 threat list); SMH (eyewitness accounts ruled out, 23 Feb 2026); interim report (5 classified recommendations).

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

EXPERT ADVICE - THE FILE THEY WON’T SHOW YOU

Albanese said the experts told him not to hold a royal commission. Turns out there’s no record they ever did.

For three weeks after Bondi, the PM knocked back a royal commission. His excuse? Security “experts” had advised against one.

Then someone went looking.

Freedom of Information showed Home Affairs and the Attorney-General’s Department, the two departments that would give that advice, held no documents recommending against a royal commission. Home Affairs put it in writing: “No documents were in the possession of the Department.”

Sussan Ley got her own security briefing. She said the same, no evidence the agencies ever advised against it. She called it hiding behind national security as a political shield.

And here’s the kicker. There’s a brief written on 16 December, two days after the massacre, laying out inquiry options. The government won’t release it. Their reason? It “was not progressed.”

So the one document from the moment it mattered stays locked in a drawer.

You don’t hide the paperwork when the paperwork clears you.

He resisted. He got dragged into it. And he’s still sitting on a file he won’t let you read.

What’s in the brief they won’t release, Albanese?

Cold Hard Facts, Corrected When Wrong.

What’s your Thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

Sources:
- The West Australian (FOI documents — Home Affairs & AG’s Dept held no advice; PM&C 16 December brief withheld as “not progressed”); Sussan Ley statements post-security briefing.

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA - STREWTH SURELY YOU CAN SEE IT

THE PROBLEM ISN’T WHO’S IN THE CHAIR. IT’S WHO OWNS THE TABLE.

I’ve spent months inside the AEC returns, the ASIC extracts, the tender records. Both major parties. The minors. The teals. Same standard, every party.

Here’s what the paper trail says.

Of the money flowing from Australia’s top political donors, 92.4% by dollar value — $101.5 million of $109.8 million, comes from entities with a connection to the government they’re funding. Commonwealth contracts. Commonwealth tenancies. Registered lobbyists.

Former politicians and their staff.

44 corporate donors fund both major parties at the same time. Think about that. You don’t pay both boxers unless you own the ring.

$55.4 million in political advocacy spending sits completely invisible to the AEC because it runs through a company structure the disclosure laws never contemplated.

Liberal Party donations of $300K to $2.6 million routinely flow through private companies whose shares sit with custodian corporations, structures that exist to hold names out of view.

And for 27 years, around 1,100 of Australia’s largest private companies were exempt from filing public financial statements. Some of our biggest political donors sat behind that shield the entire time.

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

So when people ask me “who should we vote for to fix this?”, I think it’s the wrong question. Swap every politician in Canberra tomorrow and the same donors will fund the replacements through the same structures by Friday. The money doesn’t care whose name is on the door. It owns the table, not the chairs.

The reset Australia needs isn’t a clean-out of people.

It’s a rewrite of rules:

Real-time donation disclosure, not 16 months after the fact. Lower disclosure thresholds, no more splitting donations to duck the line. Caps on donations from government contractors and lobbyists. Close the structural gaps that let millions move invisibly. Enforcement with actual teeth.

Honesty. Integrity. Transparency. Accountability.

Those aren’t left-wing words or right-wing words.

They’re the minimum standard for anyone spending your money.

Government exists to serve the people. Right now the disclosure system serves the donors. Until the rules change, it won’t matter who wins.

Cold hard facts. Sourced. Corrected when wrong.

What’s your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺

[Peter Lyndon-James @PeterPerthWA]

THE DONORS WHO NEVER LOSE AN ELECTION

You’ve voted in ten federal elections since 1998. Governments have changed hands four times. Howard out. Rudd and Gillard out. Morrison out. Every time, we’re told the country changed direction.

The donation records say otherwise.

I went through every political party return lodged with the AEC since 1998-99. All of it. And I went looking for one thing: companies that wrote cheques to Labor AND the Coalition in the same year.

In every single year since 1998, there has been a group of donors paying both sides at once. It has never dropped below 24. Last financial year it hit 94, the biggest on record.

Then I ran the harder test. Which donors paid both sides under all four governments, Howard, Rudd/Gillard, Abbott through Morrison, and Albanese?

Fourteen entities pass. Banks. A hotels lobby. A pharmacy lobby. A gambling company. A gas company. A big-four consultancy.

Two of them pass the strictest cut in the book, declared donations only, ten grand or more to each side, under every government since John Howard:

Pratt Holdings. $7.9 million to Labor. $10.3 million to the Coalition. Cardboard boxes don’t care who’s Prime Minister.

Manildra Group. $799,000 to Labor. $1.27 million to the Coalition. The ethanol mandate survived every one of those governments too. Draw your own conclusions, the donations are on the public record either way.

The banks are in the fourteen as well. Westpac has been a both-sides donor across twenty separate years. NAB the same. I’m quoting their declared donations only, their other payments to parties include ordinary banking business, and I don’t inflate numbers to make a point. The pattern doesn’t need inflating.

Here’s what this means in plain English. When you change the government, these donors don’t lose. They already paid the winner. They paid the loser too, and they’ll pay them again when they’re back. That’s not a bet on a party. That’s a subscription to whoever holds power.

I checked this two ways, because that’s the rule on this page. The party returns show the money coming in. The donors’ own returns, filed separately, by them, show it going out. Westpac has lodged donor returns in 27 different years. Pratt in 24. Both sets of paperwork tell the same story.

Every government since 1998 promised change. The subscription never lapsed once.

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

Cold hard facts. Sourced. Corrected when wrong.

What’s your thoughts…?

Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺