Today we gained the clearest evidence that the Western world is in a state of fascism. Never mind what you might think of Russia with its killings of political dissidents, or control of the media. We have today seen once again evidence that the Australian government has no interest in justice. What we can expect are efforts to sabotage the realisation of political rights, efforts to defend the actions of bank executives, as well as current practices. Why? The rhetoric could be anything from 'legal precedent', 'fine details in the law' or 'destabilisation of the banking system'. What it will in fact be is simply government efforts to intervene to protect banking executives who protect it. Whether its a 'conspiracy' or simply two parties preserving some loyalty or independently seeing the value of the relationship matters little. The consequences are clear - the government does not represent the interests of justice - it represents particular vested interests which:
1. Preserve the power base of the two major parties - 'the duopolistic solution'
2. Preserves the administration of the current political party
The details of the transaction are evident at SMH Online. Basically ASIC is preventing IMF Australia, which is mounting a class action against the banks, from getting access to disclosure statements. This is despite IMF representing bank customers. This people highlights the conflict of interest between the banks and the government. The government is obstructing the course of justice. It will be interesting to see how the Liberal Party will handle this issue. It will certainly test the question of whether there is a 'co-sonspiracy' between the two major political parties. i.e. Rules of engagement between the parties likely involve efforts to preserve those systems and policies which help those two parties remain in power. i.e. This political duopoly is entrenched.
It has been 6 years at least for myself waiting for these political parties to act. I have been waiting for them to legislate against the banks. I could ill-afford to waste money taking legal action against CBA/Comsec, and now there emerges a 'financial solution' in the form of IMF Australia (i.e. FinancialRedress.com.au), and the ASIC obstructs it. Clearly the reason ASIC is doing this is because if IMF is successful, it will be incredibly embarrassing for the government, because it did not act to address the problem. It will highlight the bleating inadequacies of our political system. i.e. That banks can rip off millions of customers 'small-time' and get away with it. Finally after taking 6 years of crap from them, a 'white knight' emerges in the form of IMF Australia, and the government 'harpoons' them, preventing them from acting through the courts to get justice for most Australians. The government is embarrassed. Any resolution it makes will be a half-measure to protect its interests. I think the reality is that government knows the costs of this action are greater than has been disclosed. You see the banks are not simply liable for damages over bank fees, but also broker fees. e.g. Comsec owes me $20,000 in over-charged fees for its stupid broking platform. Its later actions caused me a further $10,000 in losses because they issued certificates and closed my account without adequate warning. The reality is that this 'political solution' is a cover-up.
Australians have no rights....you never did...you simply are living an illusion. Justice is unaffordable, offers no protection, and you live in hope that you can hobble through life without being affected.
It will be interesting to see if IMF takes action in the High Court to demand the release of this information. These are of course delay tactics. Labor would like to see the issue addressed by Liberals so it reflects on them. But really its a 'conspiracy'. I have long recognised that any action by myself to seek solutions by government, or through ASIC, always amounted to zero. Why? Lack of resources was the standard answer. Here is a case where there are private resources, and the government is preventing it. Why? It ought to be clear.