Follow by Email

Monday, 20 October 2014


MEMO: Welfare Agencies
There have been some questions raised by social workers about Accommodation providers needing to first seek approvals from applicants to investigate their past or current pending criminal record, however we reserve the right to do our own checks on applicants honesty in relation to former or current criminal activity, drug addictions, drug dealing or alleged offences and to refuse approvals if we deem the misinformation used to obtain our initial approval turns out to be of a material nature & importance to make us believe the applicant will be unsuitable in maintaining the peace & good order in our houses. We do not seek approvals from applicants to make these inquiries except those needed to get a police report.

We expect all welfare agencies and staff to provide us with any material information which might make them believe the applicant will be a potential danger to our other clients or management. In our opinion the keeping of confidentiality of any serious known criminal behaviour, drug addiction or infectious disease will not be seen as any defence to helping desperate yet unsuitable persons obtaining accommodation.

We have been informed by some clients that they have been encouraged by some agencies to omit vital criminal history during their application process and we see this policy especially from Christian Church organisations to fly against the face of their own tenets upon which their churches are based.

In our opinion it should not be the responsibility of churches or welfare organisations to aid and abet proven high risk criminals to continue in their deceptive & unsocial behaviours towards others in order to help them into group accommodation and in the process put at risk others who wish to continue to live a safe & peaceful life.

We have already ceased dealing with the Salvos for which the reasons are well documented in

IMO its best to accept that some people need to learn the hard way about how they should behave if they too wish to earn the privilege of having good safe and affordable accommodation. For those that are unable or unwilling to reform themselves into better citizens, then we suggest Churches & Welfare Agencies let them find out for themselves that they will need to adjust themselves to living in cold cars, tents and expensive caravan parks.

Thursday, 16 October 2014


I'd like to congratulate the Abbott govt for eventually removing a Centrelink rort the ALP would not remove after I alerted the Centrelink Fraud Department several years ago but was told by them that it was not their job to police the rort costing the Welfare Budget millions.

The rort I can now reveal which i could not reveal previously so not to give others the opportunity to rort it involved those receiving rent assistance to stop paying their landlords rent yet continue receiving the rent assistance of about $64 pw for several months if not for years as the onus was on the recipient to advise Centrelink that they had moved or no longer renting.

The rort also involved people on unemployment or other pensions living at parents or other family home or homeless by choice to front up to a welfare agencies claiming they were living on streets or in their car and requesting assistance with finding accommodation in a rooming house which the Welfare Agency would provide them with either a bond or two weeks rent in advance for the landlord and then when the landlord signed their certificate for rental assistance would stay two weeks and disappear back on streets or back home with the fortnightly assistance intact every fortnight direct into their account while telling Centrelink they still lived at their new address. We would continue getting Centrelink mail for months or years despite sending the mail back with appropriate notation. The Fraud Department was not interested because they took the view that landlords might be telling porkies, but really why would any landlord of a real tenant want to tell lies?

Some tenants also tried to seek a refund of the W.A assistance after booking 2 weeks emergency accommodation but then wanting to leave after a few days .... these are just some of the many welfare rorts the so called "homeless" get up to get free assistance from a whole range of services designed to help the really needy. Will be revealed in my book one day.

Tuesday, 29 April 2014


IT SEEMS THE RBA IS SETTING UP TO TRAP BUILDERS WHO TAKE ON TOO MANY PROJECTS BEFORE THE RATES ARE HIKED BY 100%. This method of destruction is not new and will trap many builders and developers who take on long term developments and do not get out before interest rates go up.

Speculation about interest rates will continue as always and is often used by banks and brokers to achieve their financial trading goals from time to time, well every day really. I wont go too technical so as not to confuse you more, but there is a lot of money made out of speculation, even when rates are stable.

Some rather big groups have been caught before & the Abbey Capital Property Group circa 1979 comes to mind when they & Mainline could not complete the almost finished 46 Level Tower at 500 Bourke Street office tower which they had to sell for a 50% Off bargain basement price to the NAB. Lots of smaller developers went broke then and again during 1989-90 and every few years every time the RBA want to slow down wages inflation caused by politicians silly policies. 

It could be argued that voters deserve the egotistical politicians and their political parties they keep revoting in after they vote them out a few years earlier because of lies, incompetence, fraud & pride etc Problem is there is no choice but the main rabble of well meaning people who end up looking like con artists on both sides.

Some developers will make money before the next GFC or RBA interest rate hike will see more new home owners lose their shirts, but I argue that there will be more losers than winners except for the jobs created during the speculation period.

We have politicians trying to convince us the 2% unemployed over the usual 4% [full employment] want jobs when we all really know they just want a secure income. What the politicians don't seem to do is discuss their plans to create extra jobs with the RBA which will invariably hike interest rates 100% higher if that 2% were to suddenly find new jobs and in so doing cause a potential wages pressure on general wages which with the help of unions would become reality.

So my question to the brains trust at Treasury is: would it not be cheaper to pay the 4 + 2% unemployed a 'stay at home option payment fee' to keep interest rates low at current rates rather than risk increasing interest rates by 100% causing grief for the other 94% of people in jobs and with mortgage loans?  Why do we need to help increase revenue for the depositors as the banks will still earn their margins surely?

Sure ive left out a lot of other varioable in setting official interest rates
but I still feel id like see some economic debate about my proposal.